----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56557/#review165157 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! Looks good - but is there still an issue if the destination file is deleted? It looks like then the source file would lose its chunks. - Dan Smith On Feb. 10, 2017, 7:42 p.m., Jason Huynh wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/56557/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 10, 2017, 7:42 p.m.) > > > Review request for geode, Lynn Hughes-Godfrey, nabarun nag, Dan Smith, and > xiaojian zhou. > > > Repository: geode > > > Description > ------- > > Set a possiblyRenamed field and update the file first > Any recovering node that ends up removing the renamed file should no longer > delete it's chunks > > The testPartialRename should probably be converted to seperate tests, it > actually runs differently in a debugger. Right now it expects to kill the > cache after the duplicate file has been created. So the number of operations > has to be high enough to get to the putIfAbsent in the > FileSystem.renameFile() method. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > geode-lucene/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/cache/lucene/internal/filesystem/File.java > f3718a8 > > geode-lucene/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/cache/lucene/internal/filesystem/FileSystem.java > 78a5b80 > > geode-lucene/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/cache/lucene/internal/filesystem/FileSystemJUnitTest.java > b10b32a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56557/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > geode-lucene:precheckin > > > Thanks, > > Jason Huynh > >
