Skip to content

CLDSRV-986: Pass overhead fields when abortMPU cleans up after completeMPU - #6268

Merged
bert-e merged 3 commits into
development/9.3from
bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

CLDSRV-986: Pass overhead fields when abortMPU cleans up after completeMPU#6268
bert-e merged 3 commits into
development/9.3from
bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields

Conversation

@dvasilas

@dvasilas dvasilas commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

When AbortMultipartUpload finds an object created by an MPU whose upload ID is still addressable, it cleans up the created object.

It issues the deleteObjectMD request to delete the object without passing the overheadField parameter, which instructs Metadata to copy the overhead fields into the oplog entry.
So the resulting oplog entry has an overhead that includes only the originOp field (does not include the owner id field required by SUR).

This state can arise from CompleteMultipartUpload's ordering.
The shadow bucket holds one overview key per MPU. That key is what makes an upload ID addressable (metadataValidateMultipart fetches it and returns NoSuchUpload when it is missing).
CompleteMultipartUpload writes the resulting object first, and then deletes the MPU part keys and the overview key.

There are two cases in which an AbortMultipartUpload finds both the overview key in the shadow bucket and the object created by the MPU, and cleans up the object:

  • The shadow bucket cleanup fails, and the overview key stays indefinitely.
  • An AbortMultipartUpload arrives in the window where the resulting object has been created but the MPU state has not yet been cleaned up from the shadow bucket.

SUR cannot count an entry with no owner ID. It asserts on the existence of the owner ID field in overhead.
An oplog entry without the owner ID field completely blocks the SUR ingestor for the corresponding raft session.

Testing

A test that reproduces this scenario already exists: 'should delete the correct orphaned object version' in tests/unit/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.spec.js

…teMPU

The cleanup deletes the object or version an earlier CompleteMultipartUpload
created; without the overhead fields the resulting oplog entry carries no owner
id, which makes SUR hit an assert.
@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello dvasilas,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/bypass_source_branch_lineage Bypass the cross-branch contamination check
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-986 contains:

  • 9.3.20

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

  • 9.3.20

  • 9.4.3

  • 9.5.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-986, or the target
branch of this pull request.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

@dvasilas
dvasilas force-pushed the bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields branch from 82078d2 to 3a93a5e Compare September 2, 2026 13:20
@dvasilas

dvasilas commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Conflict

A conflict has been raised during the creation of
integration branch w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields with contents from bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields
and development/9.4.

I have not created the integration branch.

Here are the steps to resolve this conflict:

 git fetch
 git checkout -B w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields origin/development/9.4
 git merge origin/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields
 # <intense conflict resolution>
 git commit
 git push -u origin w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 93.42105% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.31%. Comparing base (ad45fba) to head (4628dd2).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on development/9.3.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js 93.42% 5 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js 93.33% <93.42%> (+0.06%) ⬆️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           development/9.3    #6268   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            85.30%   85.31%           
================================================
  Files                  206      206           
  Lines                13434    13435    +1     
================================================
+ Hits                 11460    11462    +2     
+ Misses                1974     1973    -1     
Flag Coverage Δ
file-ft-tests 68.40% <84.21%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
file-ft-tests-null-compat 68.86% <84.21%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
kmip-ft-tests 28.35% <0.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
mongo-v0-ft-tests 69.62% <82.89%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
mongo-v1-ft-tests 69.60% <82.89%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
multiple-backend 36.82% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
s3c-ft-tests-v0 64.01% <82.89%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v0-null-compat 64.06% <82.89%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v1 63.98% <82.89%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
sur-tests 35.99% <40.78%> (-0.80%) ⬇️
sur-tests-inflights 37.81% <55.26%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
unit 71.27% <92.10%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
utapi-v2-tests 34.64% <0.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@dvasilas
dvasilas force-pushed the bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields branch from 25480a6 to 4628dd2 Compare September 2, 2026 14:00
@dvasilas

dvasilas commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/reset

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Reset complete

I have successfully deleted this pull request's integration branches.

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Conflict

A conflict has been raised during the creation of
integration branch w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields with contents from bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields
and development/9.4.

I have not created the integration branch.

Here are the steps to resolve this conflict:

 git fetch
 git checkout -B w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields origin/development/9.4
 git merge origin/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields
 # <intense conflict resolution>
 git commit
 git push -u origin w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
Comment thread lib/api/apiUtils/object/abortMultipartUpload.js Dismissed
@dvasilas

dvasilas commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

🤖

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Integration data created

I have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0
  • development/9.1
  • development/9.2

You can set option create_pull_requests if you need me to create
integration pull requests in addition to integration branches, with:

@bert-e create_pull_requests

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Build failed

The build for commit did not succeed in branch w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields

The following options are set: approve, create_integration_branches

@dvasilas

dvasilas commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/status

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Status

check status
➡️ Approvals ☀️
➡️ Integration builds ☀️
➡️ Fix versions ☀️
➡️ History ☀️

The following options are set: approve, create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Build failed

The build for commit did not succeed in branch w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields

The following options are set: approve, create_integration_branches

@dvasilas

dvasilas commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/approve

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Build failed

The build for commit did not succeed in branch w/9.4/bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields

The following options are set: approve, create_integration_branches

@bert-e
bert-e merged commit 4628dd2 into development/9.3 Sep 3, 2026
60 of 61 checks passed
@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
into targetted development branches:

  • ✔️ development/9.3

  • ✔️ development/9.4

  • ✔️ development/9.5

The following branches have NOT changed:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0
  • development/9.1
  • development/9.2

This pull request did not target the following hotfix branch(es) so they
were left untouched:

  • hotfix/7.4.9
  • hotfix/7.10.3
  • hotfix/7.6.0
  • hotfix/7.8.0
  • hotfix/9.0.32
  • hotfix/9.2.36
  • hotfix/7.10.4
  • hotfix/6.4.7
  • hotfix/7.4.1
  • hotfix/7.70.21
  • hotfix/7.10.30
  • hotfix/7.4.8
  • hotfix/7.70.73
  • hotfix/7.10.15
  • hotfix/7.4.0
  • hotfix/7.4.7
  • hotfix/7.10.2
  • hotfix/9.3.13
  • hotfix/7.10.49
  • hotfix/7.7.0
  • hotfix/7.4.3
  • hotfix/9.2.24
  • hotfix/7.10.0
  • hotfix/7.9.0
  • hotfix/7.10.8
  • hotfix/7.10.27
  • hotfix/7.2.0
  • hotfix/7.70.45
  • hotfix/7.4.5
  • hotfix/7.70.11
  • hotfix/7.4.6
  • hotfix/8.8.45
  • hotfix/7.10.28
  • hotfix/9.0.7
  • hotfix/7.10.1
  • hotfix/7.4.2
  • hotfix/7.4.4
  • hotfix/7.70.51
  • hotfix/7.4.10

Please check the status of the associated issue CLDSRV-986.

Goodbye dvasilas.

The following options are set: approve, create_integration_branches

@bert-e
bert-e deleted the bugfix/CLDSRV-986-abortmpu-delete-overhead-fields branch September 3, 2026 08:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants