Works with my tests. Let’s see if it builds. Jan
From: Clebert Suconic<mailto:clebert.suco...@gmail.com> Sent: sobota 16. července 2022 5:29 To: dev@activemq.apache.org<mailto:dev@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: Help with ARTEMIS-3767 The test I wrote is actually failing with 2.17. I will check on Monday. But the idea is already there If you can figure out what I did wrong it would be a great help. But I can wait for the release. Let’s talk on Monday. On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:52 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm particular confused if I should make the check on < 2_18 or <= 2_18 > > > I'm adding a test on 2.17 and 2.18 just to be sure... depending on > failures I will change the < or <= > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:24 PM Jan Šmucr <jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> > wrote: > > > > Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'll post some feedback tomorrow. > > > > Jan > > > > Dne 15. 7. 2022 22:05 napsal uživatel Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com>: > > I have sent a new PR: > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4150 > > > > > > I have sent a release HEADS up to early next week. if we fix this > > issue it would go right on time for the 2.24.0 release. > > > > (@Jan: I would appreciate your feedback on the PR) > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:12 PM Clebert Suconic > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > ... and I always thought replication would always be used within the > > > same server. > > > > > > > > > Recently we added a test on replication versioning (compatibility > test). > > > > > > > > > I will see what I can do with the versioning. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:43 AM Robbie Gemmell > > > <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Perhaps, I didnt go looking at the year old commits to see the > > > > relative sequence of when it changed. The problem being raised wasnt > > > > that the particular PR didnt change the version though (albeit the > > > > version either already had, or subsequently did change, which I was > > > > simply noting in case it wasnt already clear to Jan). Instead its > that > > > > it changed that packet contents without adding a new packet version, > > > > and its being said that the old server cant handle the new data now > > > > being sent in the old packet, and also that the new server cant > handle > > > > the absence of the new data that the old server obviously doesnt know > > > > about to send it. > > > > > > > > Which or both of those is true I dont know. I do recall other similar > > > > cases before of suggesting not sending new fields to old servers, and > > > > being told it shouldnt matter as theyd simply not use it, though > > > > personally I argued it still should never be sent to them as then it > > > > definitely cant cause any change in behaviour. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 16:00, Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > as far as I know that PR did not make a switch in the protocol > version > > > > > because there was already another change in there for the same > > > > > version... right? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 6:07 AM Robbie Gemmell < > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This isnt an area I know about but what I vaguely recalled/can > see is > > > > > > that there was coincidentally a wire version bump in 2.18.0 as > part of > > > > > > other changes, see the ARTEMIS_2_18_0_VERSION constant in > PacketImpl. > > > > > > From that I would guess it should be possible for newer servers > to > > > > > > specifically tell whether they are connected to <=2.17.0 or >= > > > > > > 2.18.0. Perhaps the new one could then handle the situation in > some > > > > > > way if the issue can be fixed from the new side only, by > changing what > > > > > > it sends and expects in the existing packet? > > > > > > > > > > > > If it can be handled that way, I doubt there would be appetite > for > > > > > > releasing fixes across all the superceded intermediate versions > rather > > > > > > than just the latest. It doesnt appear to be widely hit so far in > > > > > > nearly a year, people using only any versions >=2.18.0 wont be > > > > > > affected, and anyone not yet affected could become so should use > a > > > > > > more recent fixed release (or else can patch the old superceded > > > > > > intermediate release with the fix themselves). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 09:57, Jan Šmucr < > jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear devs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask you for help with the communication > incompatibility between pre-2.18.0 servers and the newer ones. What I've > learned so far is that in 2.18.0 there's been a change in the > REPLICATION_START_FINISH_SYNC packet, yet no new version of that packet has > been introduced. There have been some additional data appended to that > packet, so that newer servers expect older servers to send more data than > they actually do, and older servers can't cope with the additional data > they receive. The fact that until now nobody noticed that replication > between pre-2.18.0 and post-2.18.0 does not work confuses me a little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before learning the actual reason of the incompatibility, I > have developed a test which would eventually pass after the issue has been > fixed. But now I see that fixing it would mean releasing a set of at least > five minor bugfix releases. Shall I even attempt? If not, will you accept > at least the test suite so that nothing like that happens in the future? > Also mentioning the incompatibility somewhere might help others as > unfortunate as me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The WIP PR is here: > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4144 > > > > > > > [ > https://opengraph.githubassets.com/1fef362275960b2364da60ecddb76ca361b56b67aca157a2a2d25e3145d32d99/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4144 > ]<https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4144> > > > > > > > ARTEMIS-3767 Fix replication incompatibility between pre > 2.18.0 and SNAPSHOT (WIP) by jsmucr · Pull Request #4144 · > apache/activemq-artemis< > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4144><https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4144%3e> > > > > > > > This PR attempts to solve the issue described in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3767. TL;DR replication > between =<2.17.0 and newer Artemis versions is broken since 2.18.0. > > > > > > > github.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic
