Improvement/cldsrv 646

[benzekrimaha]

Issue : CLDSRV-646

[bert-e]

Hello benzekrimaha,

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	⭐
/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 TBA
/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]

Waiting for approval

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

• the author

• 2 peers

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.92%. Comparing base (c187ed4) to head (3dd3fbc).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/metadata/acl.js	98.85% <100.00%> (+0.16%)	⬆️

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.1    #5853      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            75.89%   75.92%   +0.02%     
===================================================
  Files                  188      188              
  Lines                11975    11986      +11     
===================================================
+ Hits                  9089     9100      +11     
  Misses                2886     2886              

Flag	Coverage Δ
ceph-backend-test	45.40% <7.69%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
file-ft-tests	47.28% <7.69%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
kmip-ft-tests	26.96% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
mongo-v0-ft-tests	47.72% <7.69%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
mongo-v1-ft-tests	47.73% <7.69%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
multiple-backend	33.94% <0.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
sur-tests	35.44% <0.00%> (+0.83%)	⬆️
sur-tests-inflights	36.51% <0.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
unit	66.86% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
utapi-v2-tests	33.30% <0.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️

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.

[francoisferrand]

I understand this is a draft PR, but this is still a first stage of publicating the changes : so there should already be some PR comment and commit message to document what changing you are introducing.

[francoisferrand]

this does not seem the right place to do this:

• it is the goal of _getReplicationInfo to build the replication info
• that function is already doing the parsing/splitting of storageClasses, and associated locationConstrainsts
• the last param to getReplicationInfo indicates this is a MD-only operation (which currently should be replicated only to CRR), so this can be used deeper (currently this gets obfuscated in getReplicationInfo by converting it to const content = isMD || objSize === 0 ? ['METADATA'] : ['DATA', 'METADATA'], but this may be moved to _getReplicationInfo)

[bert-e]

Branches have diverged

This pull request's source branch improvement/CLDSRV-646 has diverged from
development/9.1 by more than 50 commits.

To avoid any integration risks, please re-synchronize them using one of the
following solutions:

• Merge origin/development/9.1 into improvement/CLDSRV-646
• Rebase improvement/CLDSRV-646 onto origin/development/9.1

Note: If you choose to rebase, you may have to ask me to rebuild
integration branches using the reset command.