Skip to content
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

fix: Surface error during wait timeout for OSS artifact driver API calls #5601

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 8, 2021
Merged

fix: Surface error during wait timeout for OSS artifact driver API calls #5601

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 8, 2021

Conversation

terrytangyuan
Copy link
Member

Signed-off-by: terrytangyuan [email protected]

Checklist:

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 6, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #5601 (8a4093e) into master (b4ce78b) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5601      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.07%   47.06%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         240      240              
  Lines       15034    15034              
==========================================
- Hits         7077     7076       -1     
  Misses       7057     7057              
- Partials      900      901       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
workflow/artifacts/oss/oss.go 7.89% <0.00%> (ø)
cmd/argo/commands/get.go 55.66% <0.00%> (-0.65%) ⬇️
workflow/controller/operator.go 71.17% <0.00%> (+0.05%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b4ce78b...8a4093e. Read the comment docs.

@alexec
Copy link
Contributor

alexec commented Apr 6, 2021

can you please attach the outpt of your testing?

@alexec alexec self-assigned this Apr 6, 2021
@terrytangyuan
Copy link
Member Author

I was getting a timed out waiting for the condition error after the specified retries on transient errors but wasn't able to see the underlying error. Switching to use wait.Backoff will give me something like timed out waiting for the condition: Failed to upload some parts with error: ConnectionTimeoutError: Connect timeout for 60000ms.

@dinever
Copy link
Member

dinever commented Apr 8, 2021

This is great! 👍

@alexec
Copy link
Contributor

alexec commented Apr 8, 2021

@terrytangyuan can I confirm you tested each of the artifact drivers with their respective cloud providers? If not, can I suggest we break this into one PR per provider so they can be tested by the community?

Copy link
Contributor

@alexec alexec left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

testing details requested

@terrytangyuan
Copy link
Member Author

Unfortunately I cannot test for all the providers. I can change this to only modifying OSS artifact driver.

Can I keep the minor refactoring of DefaultRetry in workflow/artifacts/common/common.go in the same PR though as the code would look much cleaner?

@alexec
Copy link
Contributor

alexec commented Apr 8, 2021

Maybe just refactor the OSS code? It is really easy to introduce bugs with retry, so it needs to be tested on actual provider

@terrytangyuan terrytangyuan changed the title fix: Surface error during wait timeout for artifact driver API calls fix: Surface error during wait timeout for OSS artifact driver API calls Apr 8, 2021
@terrytangyuan
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe just refactor the OSS code? It is really easy to introduce bugs with retry, so it needs to be tested on actual provider

Yep done!

@alexec alexec merged commit 88917cb into argoproj:master Apr 8, 2021
@terrytangyuan terrytangyuan deleted the backoff-artifacts branch April 8, 2021 23:01
@simster7 simster7 mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2021
50 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants