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

Miscellaneous changes to the migration assessment #2212

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 22, 2025

Conversation

sanyamsinghal
Copy link
Collaborator

@sanyamsinghal sanyamsinghal commented Jan 21, 2025

Describe the changes in this pull request

Clearly demarcation between the value of description and suggestion fields
Added fullstop to all the issue descriptions or reasons

  • so that we can easily concat reason and suggestion for assessment

Describe if there are any user-facing changes

NO

How was this pull request tested?

Exisitng tests are enough, updating the static text in them wherever required.

Does your PR have changes that can cause upgrade issues?

Component Breaking changes?
MetaDB Yes/No
Name registry json Yes/No
Data File Descriptor Json Yes/No
Export Snapshot Status Json Yes/No
Import Data State Yes/No
Export Status Json Yes/No
Data .sql files of tables Yes/No
Export and import data queue Yes/No
Schema Dump Yes/No
AssessmentDB Yes/No
Sizing DB Yes/No
Migration Assessment Report Json Yes/No
Callhome Json Yes/No
YugabyteD Tables Yes/No
TargetDB Metadata Tables Yes/No

- so that we can easily concat reason and suggestion for assessmetn
@sanyamsinghal sanyamsinghal self-assigned this Jan 21, 2025
@sanyamsinghal sanyamsinghal marked this pull request as ready for review January 21, 2025 11:53
@sanyamsinghal
Copy link
Collaborator Author

// formatToRegex converts a format string containing %s and %v
// into a regex pattern.
// - %s => (.+?) (capturing group)
// - %v => (?:.+?) (non-capturing group)
Copy link
Collaborator

@makalaaneesh makalaaneesh Jan 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

wouldn't the existing implementation work? (since you were only checking for %s)? Why even define a group for %v?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@sanyamsinghal sanyamsinghal Jan 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, what we are doing is in the description variables replacing format specifier with this regexp pattern - .+?
so that it can match the final desc string formed after putting those values. and then replace these captured substring with XXX

But where %v is used, that need to be there so matching of regexp can happen(formattedDesc vs finalDesc) but no need to capture that or replace that with XXX

Copy link
Collaborator

@makalaaneesh makalaaneesh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@sanyamsinghal sanyamsinghal merged commit 7982f87 into main Jan 22, 2025
67 checks passed
@sanyamsinghal sanyamsinghal deleted the sanyam/misc-assess branch January 22, 2025 10:18
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.

2 participants