adoroszlai commented on PR #6044:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ozone/pull/6044#issuecomment-1903577742
Thanks @symious for the patch.
The compatibility check reports some errors:
```
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SetSnapshotPropertyRequest" field: "snapshotKey" ID: 1 has
an updated name, previously "snapshotProperty" [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SetSnapshotPropertyRequest" field: "snapshotProperty" has
been removed, but is not reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotProperty" ID: "1" has been removed, but is not
reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotProperty" ID: "2" has been removed, but is not
reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotProperty" ID: "3" has been removed, but is not
reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotProperty" field: "exclusiveReplicatedSize" has
been removed, but is not reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotProperty" field: "exclusiveSize" has been removed,
but is not reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotProperty" field: "snapshotKey" has been removed,
but is not reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotPurgeRequest" ID: "2" has been removed, but is not
reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
[INFO] CONFLICT: "SnapshotPurgeRequest" field: "updatedSnapshotDBKey" has
been removed, but is not reserved [OmClientProtocol.proto]
```
caused by changes introduced in #5579:
```diff
@@ -1891,15 +1892,16 @@ message SnapshotMoveKeyInfos {
message SnapshotPurgeRequest {
repeated string snapshotDBKeys = 1;
- repeated string updatedSnapshotDBKey = 2;
}
message SetSnapshotPropertyRequest {
- optional SnapshotProperty snapshotProperty = 1;
+ optional string snapshotKey = 1;
+ optional SnapshotSize snapshotSize = 2;
+ optional bool deepCleanedDeletedDir = 3;
+ optional bool deepCleanedDeletedKey = 4;
}
-message SnapshotProperty {
- optional string snapshotKey = 1;
+message SnapshotSize {
optional uint64 exclusiveSize = 2;
optional uint64 exclusiveReplicatedSize = 3;
}
```
If I understand correctly, build for that PR would have been failed if the
`proto.lock` files were updated sooner after the branch cut.
I'll submit a PR to revert #5579, then we can revisit this one. BTW, it
would be better to recreate this branch (after the revert) in your fork.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
