-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 428
Clarify the state of an instance after a failed update or delete #570
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
Changes from 2 commits
c6d21bf
0ce0e67
0c1308a
a8bc00f
550c6e5
549b855
546cd23
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -782,6 +782,7 @@ For success responses, the following fields are defined: | |
| | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | state* | string | Valid values are `in progress`, `succeeded`, and `failed`. While `"state": "in progress"`, the Platform SHOULD continue polling. A response with `"state": "succeeded"` or `"state": "failed"` MUST cause the Platform to cease polling. | | ||
| | description | string | A user-facing message that can be used to tell the user details about the status of the operation. If present, MUST be a non-empty string. | | ||
| | instance_corrupt | boolean | For failed update and deprovisioning operations, this field indicates whether the instance is still usable or not. If the value is `true`, the Service Instance MUST be considered corrupt and the Platform SHOULD NOT allow the creation of new bindings. If the value is `false`, the Service Instance is in an unmodified and usable state. The default is true. | | ||
|
|
||
| \* Fields with an asterisk are REQUIRED. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -1190,9 +1191,13 @@ $ curl http://username:password@service-broker-url/v2/service_instances/:instanc | |
| | 400 Bad Request | MUST be returned if the request is malformed or missing mandatory data. | | ||
| | 422 Unprocessable entity | MUST be returned if the requested change is not supported or if the request cannot currently be fulfilled due to the state of the Service Instance (e.g. Service Instance utilization is over the quota of the requested plan). Additionally, a `422 Unprocessable Entity` MUST be returned if the Service Broker only supports asynchronous update for the requested plan and the request did not include `?accepts_incomplete=true`; in this case the response body MUST contain a error code `"AsyncRequired"` (see [Service Broker Errors](#service-broker-errors)). The error response MAY include a helpful error message in the `description` field such as `"This Service Plan requires client support for asynchronous service operations."`. | | ||
|
|
||
| Responses with any other status code MUST be interpreted as a failure. | ||
| When the response includes a 4xx status code, the Service Broker MUST NOT | ||
| apply any of the requested changes to the Service Instance. | ||
| apply any of the requested changes to the Service Instance and the | ||
| Service Instance MUST be in an unmodified and usable state. | ||
|
|
||
| Responses with any other status code MUST be interpreted as a failure. | ||
| The Service Instance MUST be considered corrupt and the Platform SHOULD NOT | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we should have a section on corrupt instances that explains:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Agreed. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This "Responses with any other status code..." is kind of worrisome. If it said "Any other 5xx error..." then I agree. But what about some 3xx status code? If people agree I can open a new PR to address this since this isn't really part of this PR There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @fmui did you want to address these comments? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @fmui ^^ There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. actually, does "any other" mean non-4xx or does it mean "not mentioned above in the table or previous paragraph" ? I think we need to clarify this. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I worry that if a Service Broker has an intermittent failure, and returns 500s for a period of time, then instances that receive update calls during this time will be marked as corrupt, leaving them unusable. I would prefer the broker be explicit about when an instance is corrupt rather than inferring it. It seems kinda risky. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I completely agree with @Samze. I'm also starting to question how prevalent this problem is in the wild. Do service brokers ever leave instances as corrupt today? Do they allow this to happen or have they built preventative measures? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Doesn't this call into question the entire orphan mitigation strategy? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @Samze I agree with you, but that would be an incompatible change. The PR just clarifies the current spec, it doesn't change it. The current spec says, a status code 500 must be interpreted as a failure. Following the spec, orphan mitigation must kick in. Depending on the platform, there is shorter or longer period of time between the failure and orphan mitigation. Within this timeframe, the platform must already today consider the service instance as unusable. Otherwise, why should it trigger the orphan mitigation process later? So, the PR just spells out that platform should treat this instance as broken. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @mattmcneeney There are brokers that update in multiple steps. If one step fails, they can’t move forwards or backwards and then they wait for orphan mitigation. Sure, they could immediately clean up, but from a platform perspective this is not any different. |
||
| allow the creation of new bindings. | ||
|
|
||
| #### Body | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -1672,8 +1677,13 @@ $ curl 'http://username:password@service-broker-url/v2/service_instances/:instan | |
| | 410 Gone | MUST be returned if the Service Instance does not exist. | | ||
| | 422 Unprocessable Entity | MUST be returned if the Service Broker only supports asynchronous deprovisioning for the requested plan and the request did not include `?accepts_incomplete=true`. The response body MUST contain error code `"AsyncRequired"` (see [Service Broker Errors](#service-broker-errors)). The error response MAY include a helpful error message in the `description` field such as `"This Service Plan requires client support for asynchronous service operations."`. | | ||
|
|
||
| When the response includes a 4xx status code other than 410 Gone, the | ||
| Service Instance MUST be in an unmodified and usable state. | ||
|
|
||
| Responses with any other status code MUST be interpreted as a failure and the | ||
| Platform MUST remember the Service Instance. | ||
| Platform MUST remember the Service Instance. The Service Instance MUST be | ||
| considered corrupt and the Platform SHOULD NOT allow the creation of | ||
| new bindings. | ||
|
|
||
| #### Body | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
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.
Last sentence: When not specified, the default value is
true.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.
If we head down this path, it seems like we'd need to support returning this value in the sync case too, right?
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.
While I would like to have the spec be precise about the state of the resource upon failure, for backwards compatibility can we? I'm wondering if the last sentence should be:
If not specified, the state of the resource is unspecified by this specification.
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.
The sync case is covered by HTTP status codes. 4xx means the instance is still usable, 5xx means the instance is corrupt.
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.
You are right with the last sentence. But from a practical point of view, it makes no difference. The platform must treat the instance as corrupt.
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.
ah I missed the correlation to the 400/500 response codes. Makes sense. thanks