-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
chore: formalize gRPC errors in case of UDF failures #218
Conversation
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #218 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.30% 94.21% -0.09%
==========================================
Files 55 55
Lines 2317 2316 -1
Branches 119 119
==========================================
- Hits 2185 2182 -3
- Misses 95 97 +2
Partials 37 37 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks like earlier we weren't using handle_async_error
but rather exit_on_error
. was this accidental?
@@ -26,7 +26,8 @@ grpcio = "^1.48.1" | |||
grpcio-tools = "^1.48.1" | |||
google-cloud = "^0.34.0" | |||
google-api-core = "^2.11.0" | |||
protobuf = ">=3.20,<5.0" | |||
grpcio-status = "^1.48.1" | |||
protobuf = ">=3.20,<6.0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this resolves #204
we missed adding that for few of the async servers |
@veds-g |
when we were returning exception from executor layer in some of the cases we were updating the gRPC context with errors will parallel running thread even after we shutdown the gRPC server. This updated the context , overriding the actual reason for restart. |
@veds-g Yes, I remember discussing that. To confirm this getting seen during our sync server executors only right? or in async ones as well? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit
Please add few testing scenarios covered
Also add the pointers in the other issue
Thank you for taking this up :D
yes for sync server executor. For async servers I just updated the |
Signed-off-by: veds-g <[email protected]>
Fixes #212 #204
Formalizes the UDF errors with standard prefixes across SDKs.
For sync servers we need to implement graceful shutdown to see the actual errors, else the gRPC contexts gets overridden before it is returned to the client, fixing #198 should make it work.