Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto by benzekrimaha · Pull Request #6044 · scality/cloudserver

benzekrimaha · 2026-01-14T17:31:35Z

bert-e · 2026-01-14T17:31:39Z

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 · 2026-01-14T17:31:47Z

Waiting for approval

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

the author
2 peers

codecov · 2026-01-14T17:39:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.45%. Comparing base (45ef2f0) to head (4d893bf).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on development/9.3.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           development/9.3    #6044   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            84.45%   84.45%           
================================================
  Files                  206      206           
  Lines                13156    13156           
================================================
  Hits                 11111    11111           
  Misses                2045     2045

Flag	Coverage Δ
file-ft-tests	`67.68% <ø> (ø)`
kmip-ft-tests	`28.22% <ø> (ø)`
mongo-v0-ft-tests	`68.89% <ø> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
mongo-v1-ft-tests	`69.03% <ø> (+0.02%)`	⬆️
multiple-backend	`35.17% <ø> (ø)`
sur-tests	`35.74% <ø> (ø)`
sur-tests-inflights	`37.65% <ø> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
unit	`69.58% <ø> (ø)`
utapi-v2-tests	`34.43% <ø> (ø)`

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.

SylvainSenechal · 2026-01-15T10:26:09Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

+    return gcpClient.send(command)
+        .then(data => callback(null, data))
+        .catch(err => {
+            if (err && err.$metadata && err.$metadata.httpStatusCode &&


no need to check if err exists here. I think err.$metadata.httpstatus code will always be defined.
Probably same for statusCode, gotta call the api once to verify but I feel like we shouldn't have to check if its defined or not

SylvainSenechal · 2026-01-15T10:36:19Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/completeMpu.js

    before(done => {
        config = getRealAwsConfig(credentialOne);
        gcpClient = new GCP(config);
+        gcpClient.listObjects = (params, callback) => {


Just to understand : this was available in Arsenal GcpService but you just removed it and now you are redefining it in all these files, why not keeping it in Arsenal ? I think the GcpService already has several functions that are used for tests only 🤔
Or is it because you want to reassign the statusCode ?

Upon looking : consider updating the gcpClientRetry function : check err.$metadata.statuscode == 429 on top of the existing check err.statusCode == 429.
This way, can keep listObjects in Arsenal. (unless there are other reason I didn't see)

even if we added the $metadata.httpStatusCode check inside gcpClientRetry, we still need bespoke error munging in these raw-node tests. Rather than keeping a half-working helper in Arsenal plus a bunch of local overrides, I’d rather keep the shared GcpService minimal and let the tests own whatever extra plumbing they require.

in tests, we should not need a generic wrapper to remap errors : each test is a single scenario, we can update that test to check the excepted result (both error or success)

even if we really absolutely need a helper, just introduce a regular function but do not modify the gcpClient object

can't we migrate each test instead of keeping this yet another AWS sdk v2 lookalike api?

SylvainSenechal

Don't forget to use real arsenal version in package json
Just one comment to address about the gcpClient.listObjects, maybe can consider a utility function at least, or even better keep it in Arsenal

some more comments to address

francoisferrand

in addition to the comments overall, there is something weird in these test: we use GCP client from arsenal, yet at the same time there is a re-implementation of GCP without the sdk (c.f. makeGcpRequest, retryGcpRequest...)

this should probably be changed, to do things consistently: either with GCP client (to maximize code reuse), ~~or with a custom implementation,~~ or directly with the GCP sdk (if we want to ensure the test code is independent form the production code, and failure would thus only happen due to change in production code)

francoisferrand · 2026-01-20T07:13:39Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

+gcpClient.listObjects = (params, callback) => {
+    const command = new ListObjectsCommand(params);
+    return gcpClient.send(command)
+        .then(data => callback(null, data))
+        .catch(err => {
+            if ( err.statusCode === undefined) {
+                // eslint-disable-next-line no-param-reassign
+                err.statusCode = err.$metadata.httpStatusCode;
+            }
+            return callback(err);
+        });
+};
+
+gcpClient.getBucket = (params, callback) =>
+    gcpClient.headBucket(params, (err, res) => {
+        if (err) {
+            if (err.statusCode === undefined) {
+                // eslint-disable-next-line no-param-reassign
+                err.statusCode = err.$metadata.httpStatusCode;
+            }
+            if (err.$metadata && err.$metadata.httpStatusCode === 404) {
+                // eslint-disable-next-line no-param-reassign
+                err.name = 'NoSuchBucket';
+            }
+            return callback(err);
+        }
+        return callback(null, res);
+    });
+


why keep these "legacy" functions, and not migrate the actual tests to the new SDK api?
since this PR is focused, it does not seem like a large change...

francoisferrand · 2026-01-20T07:14:57Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/completeMpu.js

        config = getRealAwsConfig(credentialOne);
        gcpClient = new GCP(config);
+        gcpClient.listObjects = (params, callback) => {
+            const command = new ListObjectsCommand(params);


same as above, should migrate each test? (and avoid duplicating this piece of code)

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:17:32Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

-                process.stdout.write(`err in creating bucket ${err}\n`);
-            }
-            return done(err);
+        const command = new CreateBucketCommand({


there used to be a gcpRequestRetry() : no problem to stop using it, but don't we need to setup retry somehow? or is it useless and handled in the client now?

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:19:11Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

    before(done => {
-        gcpRequestRetry({
-            method: 'PUT',
-            bucket: bucketName,
-            authCredentials: config.credentials,
-        }, 0, err => {
-            if (err) {
-                process.stdout.write(`err in creating bucket ${err}\n`);
-            }
-            return done(err);
+        const command = new CreateBucketCommand({
+            Bucket: bucketName,
        });
+        gcpClient.send(command)
+            .then(() => done())
+            .catch(err => {
+                process.stdout.write(`err in creating bucket ${err}\n`);
+                return done(err);
+            });


before(async () => { const command = new CreateBucketCommand({Collapse commentComment on line Bucket: bucketName, }); await gcpClient.send(command); });

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:21:08Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

    after(done => {
-        gcpRequestRetry({
-            method: 'DELETE',
-            bucket: bucketName,
-            authCredentials: config.credentials,
-        }, 0, err => {
-            if (err) {
-                process.stdout.write(`err in deleting bucket ${err}\n`);
-            }
-            return done(err);
+        const command = new DeleteBucketCommand({
+            Bucket: bucketName,
        });
+        gcpClient.send(command)
+            .then(() => done())
+            .catch(err => {
+                process.stdout.write(`err in deleting bucket ${err}\n`);
+                return done(err);
+            });
    });


after(async () => { const command = new DeleteBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucketName, }); await gcpClient.send(command) });

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:22:26Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/getVersioning.js

    const config = getRealAwsConfig(credentialOne);
    const gcpClient = new GCP(config);

    beforeEach(function beforeFn(done) {


make function async and use await when sending command (same for afterEach)

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:25:30Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/getVersioning.js

    it('should verify bucket versioning is enabled', function testFn(done) {
        return async.waterfall([
-            next => makeGcpRequest({
-                method: 'PUT',
-                bucket: this.test.bucketName,
-                authCredentials: config.credentials,
-                queryObj: { versioning: '' },
-                requestBody: xmlEnable,
-            }, err => {
-                if (err) {
-                    process.stdout.write(`err in setting versioning ${err.code}`);
-                }
-                return next(err);
-            }),
+            // Enable versioning using the official SDK client
            next => {
-                gcpClient.getBucketVersioning({
+                const command = new PutBucketVersioningCommand({
                    Bucket: this.test.bucketName,
-                }, (err, res) => {
-                    assert.equal(err, null,
-                        `Expected success, but got err ${err}`);
-                    assert.deepStrictEqual(res.Status, verEnabledObj);
-                    return next();
+                    VersioningConfiguration: { Status: 'Enabled' },
                });
+                return gcpClient.send(command)
+                    .then(() => next())
+                    .catch(err => next(err));
+            },
+            // Verify using GetBucketVersioningCommand
+            next => {
+                const command = new GetBucketVersioningCommand({
+                    Bucket: this.test.bucketName,
+                });
+                return gcpClient.send(command)
+                    .then(res => {
+                        assert.deepStrictEqual(res.Status, verEnabledObj);
+                        return next();
+                    })
+                    .catch(err => next(err));
            },
        ], err => done(err));
    });


almost every line is changed, best use async and shorten the test:

it('should verify bucket versioning is enabled', async () => { await gcpClient.send(new PutBucketVersioningCommand({ Bucket: this.test.bucketName, VersioningConfiguration: { Status: 'Enabled' }, })); const res = gcpClient.send(new GetBucketVersioningCommand({ Bucket: this.test.bucketName, })); assert.deepStrictEqual(res.Status, verEnabledObj); });

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:34:49Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/deleteMpu.js

+                },
+            err => {
+                if (err && (err.name === 'SlowDown'
+                    || err.$metadata?.httpStatusCode === 429)


bad indent, this is not at the same indent level as 'err' (nested expression)

Suggested change

|| err.$metadata?.httpStatusCode === 429)

|| err.$metadata?.httpStatusCode === 429)

or better yet just keep it on previous line, the line does not seem that long?

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:42:37Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/getTagging.js

+        function createBucket(attempt) {
+            const cmd = new CreateBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucketName });
+            gcpClient.send(cmd)
+                .then(() => {
+                    bucketCreated = true;
+                    return done();
+                })
+                .catch(err => {
+                    if ((err.name === 'SlowDown'
+                        || err.$metadata?.httpStatusCode === 429)
+                        && attempt < maxAttempts - 1) {
+                        const delay = Math.pow(2, attempt) * 1000;
+                        process.stdout.write(
+                            `SlowDown creating bucket, retrying in ${delay}ms (attempt ${attempt + 1})\n`);
+                        return setTimeout(() => createBucket(attempt + 1), delay);
+                    }
+                    process.stdout.write(`err in creating bucket ${err}`);
+                    return done(err);
+                });
+        }
+
+        createBucket(0);


can't this be written much more cleanly with async.retry or even just modifying the gcpRequestRetry to take both a command and client and repeatedly send the command if needed... (that function would not really be specific to gcp, but provide a good separation between retry logic and the test)

tests/functional/raw-node/utils/gcpUtils.js

francoisferrand · 2026-01-28T16:49:17Z

package.json

    "@hapi/joi": "^17.1.1",
    "@smithy/node-http-handler": "^3.0.0",
-    "arsenal": "git+https://github.com/scality/Arsenal#8.3.0-preview.1",
+    "arsenal": "git+https://github.com/scality/Arsenal#aed443f02efebeb3f5c2e74786baadb5c19eaded",


should be updated with arsenal 8.3.0 now that it is released

bert-e · 2026-01-29T15:35:27Z

Waiting for approval

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

the author
2 peers

DarkIsDude

Not a lot to say, code is clean with some async/await, congrats 🙏

francoisferrand · 2026-01-29T17:45:21Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

+    async.mapLimit(
+        createdObjects,
+        10,
+        (object, moveOn) => {


nit: async module supports async functions, so the same can be written with async/await:

async.mapLimit( createdObjects, 10, async (object) => await gcClient.send(new PutObjectCommand(...)), callback, );

tests/functional/raw-node/utils/gcpUtils.js

francoisferrand · 2026-01-29T17:49:48Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

+    before(async () => {
+        await gcpRetry(
+            gcpClient,
+            () => new CreateBucketCommand({


what is the point of passing a function instead of just the command object?
can't we keep things simple?

francoisferrand · 2026-01-29T17:51:35Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/head.js


    describe('without existing bucket', () => {
-        beforeEach(function beforeFn(done) {
+        beforeEach(function beforeFn() {


not aync and no callback : will never terminate?

Suggested change

beforeEach(function beforeFn() {

beforeEach(async function beforeFn() {

@benzekrimaha this one really looks like a bug : either it should be an async function, or it should call the continuation callback?

francoisferrand · 2026-01-29T17:53:28Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/head.js

+            } catch (err) {
+                process.stdout
+                    .write(`err deleting bucket: ${err.code}\n`);
+            }


the log is not needed (handled by Jest already), and more importantly this catch actually "eats" the error : so failure will not cause the test to fail (as it did before)

Suggested change

} catch (err) {

process.stdout

.write(`err deleting bucket: ${err.code}\n`);

}

await gcpClient.send(cmd);

francoisferrand · 2026-01-29T18:02:36Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/put.js

+                Bucket: bucketName,
+                Key: this.currentTest.key,
+            });
+            gcpClient.send(cmd)


francoisferrand · 2026-01-30T07:58:53Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/putTagging.js

+            Bucket: bucketName,
+            Key: this.currentTest.key,
+        });
+        gcpClient.send(cmd)


francoisferrand · 2026-01-30T07:59:38Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/putTagging.js

+        gcpRetry(
+            gcpClient,
+            () => new DeleteBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucketName }),
+            null,
+            err => {
+                if (err) {
+                    process.stdout.write(`err in deleting bucket ${err}`);
+                }
+                return done(err);
+            },
+        );


Suggested change

gcpRetry(

gcpClient,

() => new DeleteBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucketName }),

null,

err => {

if (err) {

process.stdout.write(`err in deleting bucket ${err}`);

}

return done(err);

},

);

after(async () => {

await gcpRetry(

gcpClient,

new DeleteBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucketName }),

);

francoisferrand · 2026-01-30T08:00:49Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/upload.js

+            (bucket, next) => gcpRetry(
+                gcpClient,
+                () => new CreateBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucket.Name }),
+                null,
+                next,
+            ),


Suggested change

(bucket, next) => gcpRetry(

gcpClient,

() => new CreateBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucket.Name }),

null,

next,

),

async (bucket) => await gcpRetry(

gcpClient,

() => new CreateBucketCommand({ Bucket: bucket.Name }),

),

francoisferrand · 2026-01-30T08:04:45Z

tests/functional/raw-node/utils/gcpUtils.js

        '</CreateBucketConfiguration>';
 }

+function listBucketObjects(gcpClient, params, cb) {


do we really need this helper?
it is really just sending the command, we can migrate the 2 places where it is called, like everywhere else...

this change was made based on this comment here : #6044 (comment) to avoid having to redefine the functions everytime. switching back to the commands on the tests level.

francoisferrand · 2026-02-02T08:04:59Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/head.js


    describe('without existing bucket', () => {
-        beforeEach(function beforeFn(done) {
+        beforeEach(function beforeFn() {


@benzekrimaha this one really looks like a bug : either it should be an async function, or it should call the continuation callback?

francoisferrand · 2026-02-02T08:05:45Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/head.js

-                }
-                return done(err);
+        afterEach(async function afterFn() {
+            const cmd = new DeleteBucketCommand({


missing retry (got removed)

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/completeMpu.js

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/upload.js

francoisferrand · 2026-02-02T08:27:59Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/upload.js

-                    const deleteParams = {
+    after(async () => {
+        const buckets = Object.values(bucketNames);
+        await async.eachSeries(


this cleanup code is duplicated, should be refactored into a helper function

francoisferrand · 2026-02-02T08:28:53Z

tests/functional/raw-node/utils/gcpUtils.js

+
+    for (let attempt = 0; attempt < maxAttempts; attempt++) {
+        try {
+


useless empty line

tests/functional/raw-node/utils/gcpUtils.js

DarkIsDude

LGTM

francoisferrand · 2026-02-03T14:49:47Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/completeMpu.js

+                await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+                    emptyBucket(gcpClient, bucket.Name, err => {
+                        if (err) {
+                            reject(err);
+                            return;
+                        }
+                        resolve();
+                    });
                });


nit: prefer promisify

Suggested change

await new Promise((resolve, reject) => {

emptyBucket(gcpClient, bucket.Name, err => {

if (err) {

reject(err);

return;

}

resolve();

});

});

await promisify(emptyBucket)(gcpClient, bucket.Name);

As we're migrating to aws sdk v3 we no longer need some wrapper functions previously used for v2. Introducing in this commit new helpers and relying on send commands rather than arsenal previously cloudserver tests. We also got rid of the makegcprequest function as we now use the commands directly with a retry helper. Issue: CLDSRV-826

Issue: CLDSRV-826

benzekrimaha · 2026-02-03T19:00:59Z

/approve

bert-e · 2026-02-03T19:15:57Z

In the queue

The changeset has received all authorizations and has been added to the
relevant queue(s). The queue(s) will be merged in the target development
branch(es) as soon as builds have passed.

The changeset will be merged in:

✔️ development/9.3

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

There is no action required on your side. You will be notified here once
the changeset has been merged. In the unlikely event that the changeset
fails permanently on the queue, a member of the admin team will
contact you to help resolve the matter.

IMPORTANT

Please do not attempt to modify this pull request.

Any commit you add on the source branch will trigger a new cycle after the
current queue is merged.
Any commit you add on one of the integration branches will be lost.

If you need this pull request to be removed from the queue, please contact a
member of the admin team now.

The following options are set: approve

bert-e · 2026-02-03T19:38:44Z

Queue build failed

The corresponding build for the queue failed:

Checkout the status page.
Identify the failing build and review the logs.
If no issue is found, re-run the build.
If an issue is identified, checkout the steps below to remove
the pull request from the queue for further analysis and maybe rebase/merge.

Remove the pull request from the queue

Add a /wait comment on this pull request.
Click on login on the status page.
Go into the manage page.
Find the option called Rebuild the queue and click on it.
Bert-E will loop again on all pull requests to put the valid ones
in the queue again, while skipping the one with the /wait comment.
Wait for the new queue to merge, then merge/rebase your pull request
with the latest changes to then work on a proper fix.
Once the issue is fixed, delete the /wait comment and
follow the usual process to merge the pull request.

bert-e · 2026-02-04T10:36:21Z

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

✔️ development/9.3

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

Please check the status of the associated issue CLDSRV-826.

Goodbye benzekrimaha.

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch 2 times, most recently from 5baf746 to ea9cb65 Compare January 14, 2026 17:34

benzekrimaha marked this pull request as ready for review January 14, 2026 17:34

benzekrimaha requested review from a team, SylvainSenechal, delthas, francoisferrand and maeldonn and removed request for delthas and maeldonn January 14, 2026 17:35

SylvainSenechal reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

SylvainSenechal previously approved these changes Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha changed the title ~~Improvement/cldsrv 826~~ Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto Jan 19, 2026

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from b7e25d5 to bd529bb Compare January 19, 2026 16:38

francoisferrand reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch 2 times, most recently from c3be2d7 to 9c34aa1 Compare January 27, 2026 15:49

francoisferrand reviewed Jan 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch 2 times, most recently from 2e581a8 to cfe0d6a Compare January 29, 2026 15:32

scality deleted a comment from bert-e Jan 29, 2026

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from cfe0d6a to 884e1da Compare January 29, 2026 15:35

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from f8e33fe to 671e7c6 Compare January 29, 2026 15:59

benzekrimaha requested a review from DarkIsDude January 29, 2026 16:07

benzekrimaha requested review from SylvainSenechal and francoisferrand January 29, 2026 16:07

scality deleted a comment from bert-e Jan 29, 2026

DarkIsDude approved these changes Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

francoisferrand reviewed Jan 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch 2 times, most recently from fdbab0d to 4a1e77c Compare February 1, 2026 20:41

benzekrimaha requested review from DarkIsDude and francoisferrand February 1, 2026 21:11

francoisferrand reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha requested a review from francoisferrand February 3, 2026 09:20

DarkIsDude approved these changes Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

francoisferrand approved these changes Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from ab3ffcd to 17cd218 Compare February 3, 2026 18:54

benzekrimaha added 4 commits February 3, 2026 19:54

adapt object tests with new functions and send commands

27b8efb

Issue: CLDSRV-826

adapt bucket tests with new functions and send commands

76f1138

Issue: CLDSRV-826

bump arsenal to 8.3.0

4d893bf

Issue: CLDSRV-826

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from 17cd218 to 4d893bf Compare February 3, 2026 18:58

bert-e merged commit c931c94 into development/9.3 Feb 4, 2026
29 checks passed

bert-e deleted the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch February 4, 2026 10:36

	\|\| err.$metadata?.httpStatusCode === 429)
	\|\| err.$metadata?.httpStatusCode === 429)

	beforeEach(function beforeFn() {
	beforeEach(async function beforeFn() {


		for (let attempt = 0; attempt < maxAttempts; attempt++) {
		try {

Conversation

benzekrimaha commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Jan 14, 2026

Hello benzekrimaha,

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Jan 14, 2026

Waiting for approval

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Jan 29, 2026

Waiting for approval

Uh oh!

DarkIsDude left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

francoisferrand left a comment •

edited

Loading