Benjamin Reed commented on ZOOKEEPER-51:

i think the current behavior is correct. it is an "impossible situation", so if 
it happens it should be flagged as an error.

the error in question happens when the requester has an identity associated 
with it that has an unknown scheme. however, the identities are associated with 
requesters by the server when a requester does an auth request. the only way 
that i could imagine this happening is if a follower has code to recognize a 
scheme and the leader does not have that scheme registered.

the current behavior logs the condition and then ignores the identifier with 
the unknown scheme and proceeds with the request. the alternative would be to 
log the condition and fail the request with an RuntimeInconsistencyException or 
SystemErrorException. either way we do want to log the error. the question is 
whether or not to fail the request and which errno to use. i would rather not 
fail the request.

> Review error handling in PrepRequestProcessor.fixupACL
> ------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-51
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-51
>             Project: Zookeeper
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: server
>            Reporter: Patrick Hunt
>            Assignee: Benjamin Reed
>            Priority: Minor
> Line 409 (fixupacl method) logs error for "missing authenciation 
> provider...", is this really an error? (no exception thrown as a result...) 
> should we be notifying the client in this case (might help with client side 
> debugging.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to