-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25k
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
[CI] Index synced flush rest test sees 409 Conflict #29162
Comments
Pinging @elastic/es-distributed |
It looks like a serialisation failure, and #29103 did change the wire format. I'm not yet clear how this results in the problem seen here, but I'm backing it out to allow for further progress.
|
@DaveCTurner I am looking at this. |
Please silence this test, it is blocking other effort. |
I've backported #29103 to 6.2 and corrected the BWC versions in 5.6.9. |
This is still failing when testing for BWC against 6.0.0 in the 6.2 branch: https://elasticsearch-ci.elastic.co/job/elastic+elasticsearch+6.2+bwc-tests/178/consoleText I think there is a problem in this method that was added in f10a3ed, as it assumes that all variants of 6.0 support the new functionality whereas in reality only 6.0 HEAD does. Released versions can never be changed.
I will mute the tests. |
I think this is a blocker for release of 6.2.4. If the 6.2 branch were released in its current state then the shipped product would not work in a mixed version cluster with released builds of 6.0 and 6.1. |
@DaveCTurner and @droberts195 I am looking at this. |
I muted the failing tests on the 6.2 branch in fc91822. But if you check out the commit before the muting, it can be reproduced like this:
|
I've backed out #29103 from 5.6.9 and corrected BWC versions in 6.2, 6.x and the master branches. All intake and bwc builds are good now. Thanks @bleskes, @DaveCTurner and @droberts195 for reporting and helping on this. |
Pinging @elastic/es-core-infra |
https://elasticsearch-ci.elastic.co/job/elastic+elasticsearch+6.2+intake/162/consoleText
The only change on 6.2 was a doc fix (#29116) but #29103 (on the 5.6 branch) looks like it's a more likely culprit. @dnhatn could you take a look?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: