-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.8k
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
[3.4] allow downgrade from 3.5 #17330
Conversation
f5c17ba
to
ebbda41
Compare
cc @serathius @ahrtr |
Not sure how this PR refers to dev work described in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1siSo-tA_xLRo5li5wK8KqWsOiq34PIgtmuSDcyxxwsY/edit?usp=sharing In document you described that downgrade will gated behind "--allow-downgrade" flag and will include implementation of AuthStatusRequest handling. |
a562708
to
89201d9
Compare
With the Added "--allow-downgrade" flag and implementation of AuthStatusRequest handling. |
/retest |
89201d9
to
f8234be
Compare
1312bf5
to
ccff3d7
Compare
/retest |
ccff3d7
to
ce46503
Compare
cc @lavacat |
04fa384
to
325ec09
Compare
// UnsafeDetectSchemaVersion returns version of storage schema. Returned value depends on etcd version that created the backend. For | ||
// * v3.6 and newer will return storage version. | ||
// * v3.5 will return it's version if it includes any storage fields added in v3.5. | ||
// * v3.4 will return it's version if it doesn't include any storage fields added in v3.5. |
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.
For 3.3, it will also return v3_4. So it will not impact the case of upgrading 3.3 to 3.4. We need to clarify this at least in comment and verify it in test.
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.
Added a comment. As for test, I could not find any difference in the data schemas of 3.3 and 3.4, not sure about what to test.
a18a80c
to
ccf8e33
Compare
Overall looks good. We need to add a couple of e2e test a well,
It can be addressed in a followup, but please manually verify the cases. |
ccf8e33
to
1b3688f
Compare
Tested 3.3 -> 3.4 -> 3.5 ->3.3 sequence manually with:
|
1b3688f
to
4b197f6
Compare
cc @fuweid to take a look. This PR should be also important to AKS. |
b92975c
to
a6a77dd
Compare
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.
The change looks good. But it seems that this patch needs go mod tidy
.
This PR doesn't change anything for go.mod and go.sum files. I do not see any issue when running "go mod tidy" command. Please ensure you use exactly the same go version as https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/release-3.4/.go-version#L1 |
If you pull this pull request in your local, you will see that. This pull request doesn't rebase so it shows diff. |
Yes, it's true. Curious why the workflow did not fail. Anyway, please rebase this PR. @siyuanfoundation |
Signed-off-by: Siyuan Zhang <sizhang@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Siyuan Zhang <sizhang@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Siyuan Zhang <sizhang@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Siyuan Zhang <sizhang@google.com>
a6a77dd
to
2caf0f0
Compare
rebased. the workflow still passes. |
Please read https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-flow.
Part of #15878 (comment)
Tested downgrade from 3.5 cluster locally:
infra3
infra3
with 3.4 binaryinfra2
with 3.4 binaryinfra1
with 3.4 binary