[GitHub] [ignite] ascherbakoff commented on a change in pull request #9352: IGNITE-15364 Fixed an issue that could break data consistency.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

ascherbakoff commented on a change in pull request #9352:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9352#discussion_r762863800



##########
File path: modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/GridCachePartitionExchangeManager.java
##########
@@ -3311,15 +3311,8 @@ private void body0() throws InterruptedException, IgniteCheckedException {
                                 if (fut.topologyVersion().equals(lastAffChangedVer))
                                     exchFut = fut;
                                 else if (lastAffChangedVer.after(exchId.topologyVersion())) {
-                                    // There is a new exchange which should trigger rebalancing.
-                                    // This reassignment request can be skipped.
-                                    if (log.isInfoEnabled()) {
-                                        log.info("Partitions reassignment request skipped due to affinity was already changed" +
-                                            " [reassignTopVer=" + exchId.topologyVersion() +
-                                            ", lastAffChangedTopVer=" + lastAffChangedVer + ']');
-                                    }
-
-                                    continue;
+                                    exchFut = lastFut;

Review comment:
       1) This modification doesn't look related to a described in the ticket counter issue. Better to do it in a separate ticket or modify the ticket description.
   
   2) I'm not sure it's 100% correct, because lastAffChangedVer implies the rebalancing is requred. New affinity can contain incompatible assignments, and make the reassign obsolete. Can we keep this logic ?
   
   3) The fut is always null in the assertion above:
   ```
   assert fut.changedAffinity() :
        "Reassignment request started for exchange future which didn't change affinity " +
              "[exchId=" + exchId + ", fut=" + exchFut + ']';
   ```
   
   4) I would better rename `markNodeAsInapplicableForRebalance` to `copyInapplicableNodesFrom`




-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscribe@ignite.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org