[LB policies] fix handling of UpdateLocked() result#36463
Closed
markdroth wants to merge 6 commits into
Closed
Conversation
…lazy_child_creation
eugeneo
approved these changes
May 1, 2024
eugeneo
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does not seem to have any tests... Is this change not observable from the outside.
(Approved)
Member
Author
|
It isn't really observable from the outside, because these cases can't happen today. I am adding the plumbing just as a defense against potential future changes that could introduce such cases. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes some TODOs added in #30809 for cases where LB policies lazily create child policies. Credit to @ejona86 for pointing out that simply calling
RequestReresolution()in this case will ultimately result in the exponential backoff behavior we want.This also adds some missing plumbing in code added as part of the dualstack work (in the endpoint_list library and in ring_hash) to propagate non-OK statuses from
UpdateLocked(). When I first made the dualstack changes, I didn't bother with this plumbing, because there are no cases today where these code-paths will actually see a non-OK status (EndpointAddresseswon't allow creating an endpoint with 0 addresses, and that's the only case where pick_first will return a non-OK status), and I wasn't sure if we would stick with the approach of returning status fromUpdateLocked()due to the aforementioned lazy creation case. However, now that we have a good solution for the lazy creation case, I've added the necessary plumbing, just so that we don't have a bug if in the future pick_first winds up returning non-OK status in some other case.I have not bothered to fix the propagation in the grpclb policy, since that looked like it would be slightly more work than it's really worth at this point.