@Jan: the fix has been merged in main
it should be possible to replicate between 2.17 and next release now I was going to start releasing today, but I have network issues on my office, so I will have to push it for 2 days. On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:58 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure the compatibility issue you faced is fixed. That one > and another one I just found with TX and non TX messages... > > > I will merge the PR soon as the testuiste has passed for me... the PR > check also passed and that compatiiblity test is part of the PR check. > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:14 PM Clebert Suconic > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If you downloaded my branch or the PR, the fix should be there now... > > > > > > one way you can do is to use my fork, and download the branch replica: > > > > git remote add clebert > > https://github.com/clebertsuconic/activemq-artemis.git > > git fetch clebert > > git checkout clebert/replica -B replica > > > > > > > > I will merge it soon whenever I get a full pass on my CI. > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 1:07 PM Clebert Suconic > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I closed your PR because I replaced it with another one. You should try > > > that one. > > > > > > You can still access your PR. > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:18 PM Jan Šmucr <jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Ah, nope. My PR has been closed. :/ I’ll try locally then. > > >> > > >> Ok, my 2 cents: > > >> > > >> The proper Groovy way of doing > > >> > > >> try { > > >> configuration.setGlobalMaxMessages(10); > > >> } catch (Exception ignored) { > > >> configuration.setGlobalMaxSize(10 * 1024); > > >> } > > >> > > >> would be > > >> > > >> if (configuration.metaClass.hasMetaProperty("globalMaxMessages")) { > > >> configuration.globalMaxMessages = 10 > > >> } else { > > >> configuration.globalMaxSize = 10 * 1024 > > >> } > > >> > > >> Jan > > >> > > >> From: Jan Šmucr<mailto:jan.sm...@aimtecglobal.com> > > >> Sent: sobota 16. července 2022 18:00 > > >> To: dev@activemq.apache.org<mailto:dev@activemq.apache.org> > > >> Subject: RE: Help with ARTEMIS-3767 > > >> > > >> 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 > > >> > > >> > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
