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

Add wait_until_ready=True to sandbox snapshot task id retrieval #2816

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 28, 2025

Conversation

azliu0
Copy link
Contributor

@azliu0 azliu0 commented Jan 28, 2025

Describe your changes

I was playing around with trying to break snapshots (see here) and realized I forgot to include this earlier.

For context, this flag will more gracefully propagate snapshot failures to the client. Without this flag, it may be possible to exec something on the broken snapshot and receive a container exited failure instead.

Backward/forward compatibility checks

Check these boxes or delete any item (or this section) if not relevant for this PR.

  • Client+Server: this change is compatible with old servers
  • Client forward compatibility: this change ensures client can accept data intended for later versions of itself

Note on protobuf: protobuf message changes in one place may have impact to
multiple entities (client, server, worker, database). See points above.


@azliu0
Copy link
Contributor Author

azliu0 commented Jan 28, 2025

@prbot approve

Copy link

@modal-pr-review-automation modal-pr-review-automation bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approved 👍. @thecodingwizard will follow-up review this.

@azliu0 azliu0 merged commit 0503a38 into main Jan 28, 2025
23 checks passed
@azliu0 azliu0 deleted the azliu/snapshot_wait_until_ready branch January 28, 2025 13:45
Copy link
Contributor

@thecodingwizard thecodingwizard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm!

@thecodingwizard
Copy link
Contributor

Oops actually @azliu0 I think we need to explicitly specify the timeout field here. The server code uses the presence of the timeout field to determine whether it is a legacy client that expects task_id="" or a new client that expects a DEADLINE_EXCEEDED error.

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