capture(ticdc): fix the problem that openapi is blocked when pd is abnormal #4788
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
[REVIEW NOTIFICATION] This pull request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review. |
ti-chi-bot
added
release-note
CharlesCheung96
force-pushed
the
fix_4778_openapi_stuck
branch
from
9ec5aba to
095421b
Compare
|
/run-all-tests |
Codecov Report
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4788 +/- ##
================================================
+ Coverage 55.6402% 56.0149% +0.3746%
================================================
Files 494 524 +30
Lines 61283 65886 +4603
================================================
+ Hits 34098 36906 +2808
- Misses 23750 25379 +1629
- Partials 3435 3601 +166 |
ben1009
reviewed
Mar 8, 2022
| @@ -118,9 +118,17 @@ func NewCapture4Test(o owner.Owner) *Capture { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func (c *Capture) reset(ctx context.Context) error { | |||
| conf := config.GetGlobalServerConfig() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need ut cover the change?
ti-chi-bot
added
needs-cherry-pick-release-4.0
CharlesCheung96
force-pushed
the
fix_4778_openapi_stuck
branch
from
d2a4eda to
206852d
Compare
ti-chi-bot
added
size/L
CharlesCheung96
force-pushed
the
fix_4778_openapi_stuck
branch
from
206852d to
ac9775c
Compare
|
/run-all-tests |
1 similar comment
|
/run-all-tests |
CharlesCheung96
force-pushed
the
fix_4778_openapi_stuck
branch
from
a776844 to
128e768
Compare
|
/run-all-tests |
CharlesCheung96
force-pushed
the
fix_4778_openapi_stuck
branch
from
933f9a0 to
cec8e43
Compare
amyangfei
reviewed
Mar 11, 2022
pkg/etcd/client.go
Outdated
| @@ -149,8 +158,10 @@ func (c *Client) Txn(ctx context.Context, cmps []clientv3.Cmp, opsThen, opsElse | |||
| // Grant delegates request to clientv3.Lease.Grant | |||
| func (c *Client) Grant(ctx context.Context, ttl int64) (resp *clientv3.LeaseGrantResponse, err error) { | |||
| err = retryRPC(EtcdGrant, c.metrics[EtcdGrant], func() error { | |||
| grantCtx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(ctx, etcdClientTimeoutWithoutRetry) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we use etcdClientTimeoutWithRetry here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to ensure that it returns in a reasonable amount of time, otherwise the operation may never retry due to blocking.
pkg/etcd/client.go
Outdated
| @@ -181,8 +192,10 @@ func isRetryableError(rpcName string) retry.IsRetryable { | |||
| // Revoke delegates request to clientv3.Lease.Revoke | |||
| func (c *Client) Revoke(ctx context.Context, id clientv3.LeaseID) (resp *clientv3.LeaseRevokeResponse, err error) { | |||
| err = retryRPC(EtcdRevoke, c.metrics[EtcdRevoke], func() error { | |||
| revokeCtx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(ctx, etcdClientTimeoutWithoutRetry) | |||
pkg/etcd/client.go
Outdated
| @@ -191,8 +204,10 @@ func (c *Client) Revoke(ctx context.Context, id clientv3.LeaseID) (resp *clientv | |||
| // TimeToLive delegates request to clientv3.Lease.TimeToLive | |||
| func (c *Client) TimeToLive(ctx context.Context, lease clientv3.LeaseID, opts ...clientv3.LeaseOption) (resp *clientv3.LeaseTimeToLiveResponse, err error) { | |||
| err = retryRPC(EtcdRevoke, c.metrics[EtcdRevoke], func() error { | |||
| timeToLiveCtx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(ctx, etcdClientTimeoutWithoutRetry) | |||
cdc/capture/main_test.go
Outdated
Comment on lines
26
to
27
| goleak.IgnoreTopFunction("google.golang.org/grpc.(*ccBalancerWrapper).watcher"), | ||
| goleak.IgnoreTopFunction("google.golang.org/grpc.(*addrConn).resetTransport"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why didn't the gRPC goroutines exit in test case?
cdc/capture/capture.go
Outdated
| @@ -605,6 +606,8 @@ func (c *Capture) WriteDebugInfo(ctx context.Context, w io.Writer) { | |||
| if c.processorManager != nil { | |||
| fmt.Fprintf(w, "\n\n*** processors info ***:\n\n") | |||
| c.processorManager.WriteDebugInfo(ctx, w, doneM) | |||
| } else { | |||
| close(doneM) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this an existing bug, how can it be reproduced?
ti-chi-bot
added
the
needs-rebase
CharlesCheung96
force-pushed
the
fix_4778_openapi_stuck
branch
from
43b8403 to
cb3035e
Compare
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #5109. |
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #5110. |
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #5111. |
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #5112. |
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #5113. |
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #5114. |
CharlesCheung96
added a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
CharlesCheung96
added a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
CharlesCheung96
added a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
CharlesCheung96
added a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
CharlesCheung96
added a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
ti-chi-bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
CharlesCheung96
added a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2022
CharlesCheung96
added a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2022
CharlesCheung96
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/tiflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2022
ti-chi-bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #4778
What is changed and how it works?
(*openApi).forwardToOwnerCheck List
Tests
Related changes
Release note