Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/3] fix #3786: api: add resync-corrupt option to sync jobs

[Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>]

On 17.10.2024 16:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>Am 17/10/2024 um 15:20 schrieb Gabriel Goller:
>> On 17.10.2024 08:15, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> In general, it would be _really_ nice to get some regression testing for
>>> sync jobs covering the selection with different matching and options.
>>> The lack of that doesn't have to block your/shannon's patch, but IMO it
>>> should be added rather sooner than later. Sync is becoming more and more
>>> complex, and the selection of snapshots is a very important and fundamental
>>> part of it.
>>
>> Do you think we could mock ourselves out of this and unit-test it
>> somehow? For full regression tests we will need Lukas's CI work.
>
>I hope so, as that is mostly pure application logic. Albeit I'm I currently
>can't give you tips for what the best/simplest way for mocking this would be.
>Obvious candidates would probably be to pull out the parts for getting local and
>remote backup snapshot lists and info into a trait or alternatively
>refactoring more logic out that gets the info passed as parameter and call
>that in the tests with the test data.
>
>I have no strong preference here and there might be even better options for
>this specific cases, but it'd be great if the existing "real" code does not
>need to bend backwards to support the mocking and that defining or expanding
>the tests isn't too tedious.
>FWIW, one option might even be to have the list of snapshots defined and
>generating two directory trees during build that mimic the actual datastores
>more closely and might require less mocking and thus have bigger code coverage.

Interesting, I'll have a look at it when I'm done with my other stuff
:)

>>>> +    /// Load the verify state from the manifest.
>>>> +    pub fn verify_state(&self) -> Option<VerifyState> {
>>>> +        self.load_manifest().ok().and_then(|(m, _)| {
>>>
>>> hmm, just ignoring errors here seems a bit odd, that might be a case where one
>>> might want to re-sync. So I'd prefer wrapping this a result, even if it's a bit
>>> tedious.
>>
>> Converted to (and returned) a `Result<VerifyState, anyhow::Error>` for now,
>> but I'd be wary about treating a failed `load_manifest` the same as a
>> `VerifyState::Failed`. Especially because currently an unverified
>> snapshot simply returns `Err(null...)`. So we would first need to extend
>> `VerifyState` to have a `Unknown` variant.
>
>Yeah, I agree with you not treating a failure to load/parse the manifest
>the same as a failed verification state, but the caller can log the error
>and thus at least make the user aware of something unexpected happening.

Will do!

>>> And would it make sense to check the downloaded manifest's verify state, no point
>>> in re-pulling if the other side is also corrupt, or is that possibility already
>>> excluded somewhere else in this code path?
>>
>> This should be covered, because:
>>   - if the index is broken, we can't even open it
>>   - if an unencrypted chunk is corrupted, the crc is checked when reading
>>     it (pbs-client/src/remote_chunk_reader.rs:55)
>>   - if an encrypted chunk is corrupted, the crc is checked as well
>>     (pbs-datastore/src/data_blob.rs:81)
>
>ok, thanks for confirming this.

Thanks for the reply!
Posted a v2.


_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel