-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement safeguards to check plan against the archive #24
Conversation
&self, | ||
start: u64, | ||
archive: &Archive, | ||
) -> anyhow::Result<anyhow::Result<()>> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can probably simplify the signature and the rest of the call stack here, right? It sounds like the inner error is a boolean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did a double-take on the sig too. Even if this is necessary, would appreciate more comments to explain.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I initially wrote this change with a boolean, but then decided against it, because it's useful to understand and print why a plan failed a check against an archive, and not just that it failed.
As far as the nested results, this is because the first layer can signal spurious failure (io ops failing, whatever the sqlite lib might throw at us), while the latter signals permanent failure. The plan will never succeed against that archive without manual intervention if the inner error is set. By having two layers, we could in a further change add retries around the outer layer. I think distinguishing between "errors you can do something about" and "errors you can't hope to resolve" is good.
I haven't actually functionally tested this yet, was focused on #25. @cronokirby I see we need a rebase here: can you do so and then ping me back? Been running the reindexer a lot lately, so I'm happy to give this another go as sanity check. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
needs rebase
This adds some basic checks that the archive has critical blocks required by the plan, and that the geneses required by the plan are also present.
21cb413
to
e4da51d
Compare
Used this to run another |
This can help prevent some potential mistakes in creating a plan, by checking that for the steps of the plan, the first and last blocks that it needs are present, and that any genesis it needs is also present. This can prevent off by one mistakes around upgrades in particular, since the genesis won't exist.