This change makes the etcd package compatible with the existing Go
ecosystem for module versioning.
Used this tool to update package imports:
https://github.com/KSubedi/gomove
Apps typically maintain the raft configuration as part of the state
machine. As a result, they want to be able to reject configuration change
entries at apply time based on the state on which the entry is supposed
to be applied. When this happens, the app should not call
ApplyConfChange, but the comments did not make this clear.
As a result, it was tempting to pass an empty pb.ConfChange or it's V2
version instead of not calling ApplyConfChange.
However, an empty V1 or V2 proto aren't noops when the configuration is
joint: an empty V1 change is treated internally as a single
configuration change for NodeID zero and will cause a panic when applied
in a joint state. An empty V2 proto is treated as a signal to leave a
joint state, which means that the app's config and raft's would diverge.
The comments updated in this commit now ask users to not call
ApplyConfState when they reject a conf change. Apps that never use joint
consensus can keep their old behavior since the distinction only matters
when in a joint state, but we don't want to encourage that.
When a leader removes itself, it will retain its leadership but not
accept new proposals, making the range effectively stuck until manual
intervention triggers a campaign event.
This commit documents the behavior. It does not correct it yet.
Verifiy the behavior in various v1 and v2 conf change operations.
This also includes various fixups, notably it adds protection
against transitioning in and out of new configs when this is not
permissible.
There are more threads to pull, but those are left for future commits.
It is a helper case to attach a debugger to when a problem needs
to be investigated in a longer test file. In such a case, add the
following stanza immediately before the interesting behavior starts:
_breakpoint:
----
ok
and set a breakpoint on the _breakpoint case.
It has often been tedious to test the interactions between multi-member
Raft groups, especially when many steps were required to reach a certain
scenario. Often, this boilerplate was as boring as it is hard to write
and hard to maintain, making it attractive to resort to shortcuts
whenever possible, which in turn tended to undercut how meaningful and
maintainable the tests ended up being - that is, if the tests were even
written, which sometimes they weren't.
This change introduces a datadriven framework specifically for testing
deterministically the interaction between multiple members of a raft group
with the goal of reducing the friction for writing these tests to near
zero.
In the near term, this will be used to add thorough testing for joint
consensus (which is already available today, but wildly undertested),
but just converting an existing test into this framework has shown that
the concise representation and built-in inspection of log messages
highlights unexpected behavior much more readily than the previous unit
tests did (the test in question is `snapshot_succeed_via_app_resp`; the
reader is invited to compare the old and new version of it).
The main building block is `InteractionEnv`, which holds on to the state
of the whole system and exposes various relevant methods for
manipulating it, including but not limited to adding nodes, delivering
and dropping messages, and proposing configuration changes. All of this
is extensible so that in the future I hope to use it to explore the
phenomena discussed in
https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/issues/7625#issuecomment-488798263
which requires injecting appropriate "crash points" in the Ready
handling loop. Discussions of the "what if X happened in state Y"
can quickly be made concrete by "scripting up an interaction test".
Additionally, this framework is intentionally not kept internal to the
raft package.. Though this is in its infancy, a goal is that it should
be possible for a suite of interaction tests to allow applications to
validate that their Storage implementation behaves accordingly, simply
by running a raft-provided interaction suite against their Storage.
In order to cover message can well be received when a node is paused, this commit sends message async using goroutine and random sleep. This change makes recvms is possible to cache message during node.pause is triggered.
The suggested pattern for Raft proposals is that they be retried
periodically until they succeed. This turns out to be an issue
when a leader cannot commit entries because the leader will continue
to append re-proposed entries to its log without committing anything.
This can result in the uncommitted tail of a leader's log growing
without bound until it is able to commit entries.
This change add a safeguard to protect against this case where a
leader's log can grow without bound during loss of quorum scenarios.
It does so by introducing a new, optional ``MaxUncommittedEntriesSize
configuration. This config limits the max aggregate size of uncommitted
entries that may be appended to a leader's log. Once this limit
is exceeded, proposals will begin to return ErrProposalDropped
errors.
See cockroachdb/cockroach#27772
Tests in `rafttest` would fail because they referred to field `Id` instead of
`ID`. This PR fixes that.
Closes#9504.
Signed-off-by: Kostas Christidis <kostas@christidis.io>
Brandon Philips