The code is updated with the following changes:
1. Adhere to the lost+found/databasename custom...
2. ...except databases starting with _, which goes into
_system/databasename
3. Sync up with jchris's db_repair branch
(About #2, I started with _/database but I think it's too easy to miss at
the command line.)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 00:52, J Chris Anderson <jch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few bug reports from my testing:
>
> I launched with this command, as specified in the README:
>
> find ~/code/couchdb/tmp/lib -type f -name '*.couch' -exec ./recover_couchdb
> {} \;
>
>
>
> First of all, it chokes on my _users and _replicator db:
>
> [info] [<0.2.0>] couch_db_repair for _users - scanning 335961 bytes at 0
> [error] [<0.2.0>] couch_db_repair merge node at 332061 {case_clause,
> {error,illegal_database_name}}
>
> That second [error] line is repeated many many times (once per merge I
> think). I think the issue is that _users is hard-coded to be OK, but
> _users_lost+found is not. So we should do something about that, maybe if a
> db-name starts with _ we should call the lost and found a_users_lost+found
> (_ sorts at the top, so "a" will be near it and legal).
>
>
>
> When a database has readers defined in the security object, the tool is
> unable to open them (the reading part of the repair tool needs to have the
> _admin userCtx, not just the writer).
>
> [debug] [<0.2.0>] Not a reader: UserCtx {user_ctx,null,[],undefined} vs
> Names [<<"joe">>] Roles [<<"_admin">>]
> escript: exception throw: {unauthorized,<<"You are not authorized to access
> this db.">>}
> in function couch_db:open/2
> in call from couch_db_repair:make_lost_and_found/3
> in call from recover_couchdb:main/1
> in call from escript:run/2
> in call from escript:start/1
> in call from init:start_it/1
> in call from init:start_em/1
>
>
> It would also be helpful if the status lines could say something more than
>
> [info] [<0.2.0>] couch_db_repair writing 15 updates to bench_lost+found
>
> Like maybe add a note like "about 23% complete" if at all possible.
>
>
> I will patch the first few, I'd love help from someone on the last one.
> I'll be on IRC.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 10:18 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Jason Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Jason.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 04:14, Jason Smith <j...@couch.io> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:52, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Excellent, thanks for testing. I caught Jason Smith saying on IRC
> that he
> >>>> had packaged the whole thing up as an escript + some .beams. If we
> can get
> >>>> it down to a single file a la rebar that would be a pretty sweet way
> to
> >>>> deliver the repair tool in my opinion.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Please check out http://github.com/jhs/repair-couchdb
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think you mean http://github.com/jhs/recover-couchdb
> >>
> >
> > I think it is important that we package and release this, if it is ready.
> We should link to it from the bug description page, the project home page,
> as well as blog about it, etc. What is the point of working feverishly on a
> recovery tool if we don't go the last mile?
> >
> > I am testing it now on my database directory to make sure it doesn't harm
> anything (I was never subject to the bug, which is probably where most
> people are, but they might run it anyway.)
> >
> > As it stands the submodules thing can't be part of the release, we need
> to package it up as a single zip file or something.
> >
> > Is there anything else that needs to be done before we can release this?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >> --
> >> Jason Smith
> >> Couchio Hosting
> >
>
>
--
Jason Smith
Couchio Hosting
