-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Bundle of fixes (main) #110
Conversation
070f178
to
78c2d42
Compare
After some discussion, we've decided to drop the commit containing Original work can be found here: https://github.com/korydraughn/irods_rule_engine_plugin_logical_quotas/tree/return_violation_on_matching_total_max_data_size.m |
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.
Seems good. Had one suggestion
I forgot about the "pre-scan" message being removed. May be an issue for some other repos as well for 4.3.2, but we will cross those bridges when we get to them.
The whole nested shared monitored collections thing was added because the plugin uses the RsComm as-is to update quotas. If the user has permission to write to a collection under someone else's collection, updating the quota of the collection will work. However, when the plugin starts walking up the logical path to update quotas on parent-parent collections, that user may NOT have permission to update those which will lead to an error. This is entirely avoidable by creating a client-side connection as the service account and updating the quotas using the admin flag. Doing that will slow things down due to TCP connection setup/teardown, but it is guaranteed to avoid the issue described. Using a new connection also means the server can exhaust its resources if there's a lot of activity happening on the server. If use of a new client connection isn't ideal, then it's on the admin to manage the permissions and decide whether nested shared monitored collections should be allowed. Thoughts? |
Can we walk up the tree as-is, and then, if a permission error is hit, switch to adminFlag? So we get speed for normal cases, and then have a silent, successful fallback for the scenario you describe? |
That is possible. Just need to determine if that's a simple/quick tweak or not. |
It's a complex / not-obvious scenario. So, it can wait if there are other things, I think. |
Not a blocker for sure. It was something that crossed my mind. I'll put it in an issue so it's not lost. You agree with the additional wording in the README? |
Sure. This is good - and helps people think about ramifications of alternate approaches. |
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.
Still seems good. Just saw one more thing
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.
Squash em
All tests passed. Squashing. |
Squashed. |
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.
Looks good. # it.
Tweaked a test name. Will pound after the tests come back as passing. |
…t monitoring collections.
Pounded. |
Merging. |
All tests passed.
Have to add a test for the commit containing
(TEST THIS)
in the commit message.