Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CASSGO-47 Enable Session.ExecuteBatchCAS() to return underlying scan errors #1860

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

worryg0d
Copy link
Contributor

The patch enables Session.ExecuteBatchCAS() to return an error that may happen during rows scanning.

Patch by Bohdan Siryk; reviewed by <> for CASSGO-47

Originally raised in #1746

@worryg0d
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joao-r-reis I prepared a very very little patch for CASSGO-47. Could you please take a look at this and approve the workflow run? Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@joao-r-reis joao-r-reis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should add a test or modify an existing one so that we can prevent a regression in the future (and to make sure this is properly fixed)

@worryg0d
Copy link
Contributor Author

Adjusted TestCAS a bit to cover changes in this PR. I locally run it over my Cassandra cluster and it doesn't fail. However, CI seems to be broken...

The patch enables Session.ExecuteBatchCAS() to return an error which may happen
during rows scanning.

Patch by Bohdan Siryk; reviewed by <> for CASSGO-47
@worryg0d
Copy link
Contributor Author

worryg0d commented Jan 23, 2025

Ah, I see, the CI is canceled due to actions/upload_artifact@v3 deprecation. However, it says we won't be able to run workflows with it starting from Jan 30th, but it is still canceled...

@worryg0d
Copy link
Contributor Author

Created JIRA for the actions/upload_artifact@v3 deprecation issue CASSGO-48

Copy link

@ribaraka ribaraka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@jameshartig
Copy link
Contributor

jameshartig commented Jan 29, 2025

I believe this is better handled/fixed in #1853 which handles the other CAS functions as well.

@joao-r-reis
Copy link
Contributor

@worryg0d is it ok if we close this in favor of #1853 ?

@worryg0d
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh, I didn't realize that #1853 will fix this. I don't mind closing this one

@worryg0d
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closed in favor of #1853

@worryg0d worryg0d closed this Jan 29, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants