fix: backward compatibility with numberofchunks #393
Conversation
zaratsian
changed the title
|
/gcbrun |
| return datastore.LoadStruct(b, ps) | ||
| // ps_modified has been added to enable backward compatibility by creating | ||
| // a new datastore array that replaces legacy "NumberOfChunks" with "ChunkCount". | ||
| var ps_modified []datastore.Property |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can directly change ps I think. If you need to use a new slice, please use mixedCaps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked in the history, and "NumberOfChunks" has never been a field of BlobRef. When introduced, it was called ChunkCount. You can remove this change.
internal/pkg/metadb/record/record.go
Outdated
| externalBlob, ps, err := timestamps.LoadUUID(ps, externalBlobPropertyName) | ||
| // ps_modified has been added to enable backward compatibility by creating | ||
| // a new datastore array that replaces legacy "NumberOfChunks" with "ChunkCount". | ||
| var ps_modified []datastore.Property |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although this fixed the backward compatibility issue within Open Saves, we would still need to change our gRPC client to start passing ChunkCount instead of NumberOfChunks. Since we use a rolling deployment strategy, we need a gRPC client that can handle both fields simultaneously.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thinking more about this, this code change avoids the internal error we were seeing but won't really provide data consistency since we always read "ChunkCount" from datastore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I take this back. I didn't realize the data is already loaded at this point. @zaratsian Are you going to modify the implementation and add a test for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds good - I'm working on a few updates based on the feedback, plus the tests and will update the PR shortly.
|
@zaratsian fyi, please take what you need from here main...yuryu:open-saves:number-count |
Your code suggestions looked great @yuryu, thanks! I've tested several ways as well and all references to NumberOfChunks seems to be handled well. @loranger2k I incorporated your feedback as well, and removed the blobref. I agree that should not be needed because it was introduced after the PR #391. |
ghost
merged commit 
ghost
mentioned this pull request
What type of PR is this?
/kind fix
What this PR does / Why we need it:
This PR maps a legacy field called "NumberOfChunks" to the newly named "ChunkCount" field. This change was implemented against the record and blobref so that all downstream functions are able to reference "ChunkCount" without there being any naming conflict.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes: Backward compatibility issue with Record created with NumberOfChunks #391
#391
Special notes for your reviewer: