nickva commented on a change in pull request #756: Make couch_peruser a proper
Erlang app
URL: https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/756#discussion_r143550974
##########
File path: src/couch_peruser/src/couch_peruser.erl
##########
@@ -157,50 +258,86 @@ remove_user(User, Prop, {Modified, SecProps}) ->
{<<"names">>, lists:delete(User, Names)})}})}
end.
+-spec ensure_security(User :: binary(), UserDb :: binary(), TransformFun ::
fun()) -> ok.
ensure_security(User, UserDb, TransformFun) ->
- {ok, Shards} = fabric:get_all_security(UserDb, [?ADMIN_CTX]),
- {_ShardInfo, {SecProps}} = hd(Shards),
- % assert that shards have the same security object
- true = lists:all(fun ({_, {SecProps1}}) ->
- SecProps =:= SecProps1
- end, Shards),
- case lists:foldl(
- fun (Prop, SAcc) -> TransformFun(User, Prop, SAcc) end,
- {false, SecProps},
- [<<"admins">>, <<"members">>]) of
- {false, _} ->
- ok;
- {true, SecProps1} ->
- ok = fabric:set_security(UserDb, {SecProps1}, [?ADMIN_CTX])
+ case fabric:get_all_security(UserDb, [?ADMIN_CTX]) of
+ {error, no_majority} ->
+ % TODO: make sure this is still true: single node, ignore
+ ok;
+ {ok, Shards} ->
+ {_ShardInfo, {SecProps}} = hd(Shards),
+ % assert that shards have the same security object
+ true = lists:all(fun ({_, {SecProps1}}) ->
+ SecProps =:= SecProps1
+ end, Shards),
+ case lists:foldl(
+ fun (Prop, SAcc) -> TransformFun(User, Prop, SAcc) end,
+ {false, SecProps},
+ [<<"admins">>, <<"members">>]) of
+ {false, _} ->
+ ok;
+ {true, SecProps1} ->
+ ok = fabric:set_security(UserDb, {SecProps1}, [?ADMIN_CTX])
+ end
end.
+-spec user_db_name(User :: binary()) -> binary().
user_db_name(User) ->
HexUser = list_to_binary(
[string:to_lower(integer_to_list(X, 16)) || <<X>> <= User]),
<<?USERDB_PREFIX,HexUser/binary>>.
+-spec exit_changes(ClusterState :: #clusterState{}) -> ok.
+exit_changes(ClusterState) ->
+ lists:foreach(fun (State) ->
+ demonitor(State#state.changes_ref, [flush]),
+ exit(State#state.changes_pid, kill)
Review comment:
But we should see then what this code should be doing. We demonitor and exit
changes but we don't unlink. So when we kill a changes process and it is linked
to main gen_server it will kill the main gen server as well.
It's ok if say we call exit_changes only after we know all of the changes
processes have exited, but if some of them are still running, we'd end up
killing the gen_server in a awkward way.
Currently saw we only call exit_changes when config is updated or when we
noticed cluster is unstable and are waiting for it to stabilize.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
With regards,
Apache Git Services
