Skip to content

CLDSRV-965: checksums feature flag - #6248

Open
leif-scality wants to merge 11 commits into
development/9.4from
improvement/CLDSRV-965-checksums-feature-flag
Open

CLDSRV-965: checksums feature flag#6248
leif-scality wants to merge 11 commits into
development/9.4from
improvement/CLDSRV-965-checksums-feature-flag

Conversation

@leif-scality

@leif-scality leif-scality commented Aug 6, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • Add checksum toggle
  • Enabled by default
  • When set to false, checksums are no longer handled (no header is verified, no checksum is computed, no checksum is compared, no checksum is stored)
  • Content-MD5 et x-amz-checksum-sha256 not impacted by the flag

@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello leif-scality,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval ⭐
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status ⭐
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA ⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix ⭐
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check ⭐
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval ⭐
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval ⭐
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

claude[bot]
claude Bot reviewed Aug 6, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread tests/unit/api/multipartUpload.js Outdated
claude[bot]
claude Bot reviewed Aug 6, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread tests/unit/api/multipartUpload.js Outdated
claude[bot]
claude Bot reviewed Aug 6, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread tests/unit/api/objectCopy.js Outdated
claude[bot]
claude Bot reviewed Aug 6, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread tests/unit/api/objectPutPartChecksum.js Outdated
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 6, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.36%. Comparing base (8a8ee9b) to head (8218847).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/Config.js 80.42% <100.00%> (+0.24%) ⬆️
lib/api/apiUtils/integrity/validateChecksums.js 98.75% <100.00%> (+0.08%) ⬆️
lib/api/apiUtils/object/createAndStoreObject.js 86.41% <100.00%> (+0.16%) ⬆️
lib/api/apiUtils/object/prepareStream.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/api/completeMultipartUpload.js 90.82% <100.00%> (-0.23%) ⬇️
lib/api/initiateMultipartUpload.js 91.57% <100.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
lib/api/objectCopy.js 89.74% <100.00%> (+0.34%) ⬆️
lib/api/objectPutCopyPart.js 88.84% <100.00%> (+0.09%) ⬆️
lib/api/objectPutPart.js 89.62% <100.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
lib/routes/veeam/utils.js 98.19% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more 
@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.4    #6248      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            86.32%   86.36%   +0.03%     
===================================================
  Files                  212      212              
  Lines                14528    14562      +34     
===================================================
+ Hits                 12541    12576      +35     
+ Misses                1987     1986       -1
Flag Coverage Δ
checksums-disabled-tests 35.34% <60.86%> (?)
file-ft-tests 70.00% <69.56%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
file-ft-tests-null-compat 70.48% <69.56%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
kmip-ft-tests 28.09% <42.02%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
mongo-v0-ft-tests 71.10% <69.56%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
mongo-v1-ft-tests 71.13% <69.56%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
multiple-backend 36.10% <28.98%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v0 65.07% <63.76%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v0-null-compat 65.12% <63.76%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
s3c-ft-tests-v1 65.05% <63.76%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
sur-tests 36.47% <42.02%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
sur-tests-inflights 39.28% <63.76%> (+0.08%) ⬆️
unit 73.80% <98.55%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
utapi-v2-tests 35.30% <65.21%> (+0.09%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@leif-scality
leif-scality force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-965-checksums-feature-flag branch from 064d136 to d2f1698 Compare August 6, 2026 12:07
@leif-scality
leif-scality force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-965-checksums-feature-flag branch from d2f1698 to 8218847 Compare August 6, 2026 13:19
@SylvainSenechal
SylvainSenechal self-requested a review August 6, 2026 14:11
dvasilas
dvasilas approved these changes Aug 7, 2026
View reviewed changes

@dvasilas dvasilas left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As discussed, there are cases when completeMultipartUpload could permanently fail because parts have been enabled with checksums disabled (during upgrades, if checksums are disabled and then re-enabled).
Let's create a documentation ticket to document these cases and how they should be resolved.

@leif-scality

leif-scality commented Aug 7, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

As discussed, there are cases when completeMultipartUpload could permanently fail because parts have been enabled with checksums disabled (during upgrades, if checksums are disabled and then re-enabled). Let's create a documentation ticket to document these cases and how they should be resolved.

I think I will add an error log "unable to calculate final object checksum, part X has no stored checksum. Object will be created with no checksum" and accept the request. This case could also occur during the upgrades so I think the accept plus log is a better solution

@dvasilas

dvasilas commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

As discussed, there are cases when completeMultipartUpload could permanently fail because parts have been enabled with checksums disabled (during upgrades, if checksums are disabled and then re-enabled). Let's create a documentation ticket to document these cases and how they should be resolved.

I think I will add an error log "unable to calculate final object checksum, part X has no stored checksum. Object will be created with no checksum" and accept the request. This case could also occur during the upgrades so I think the accept plus log is a better solution

Makes sense 👍 . That's a better choice than requiring a manual intervention for each problematic MPU.
We should maybe still document the checksum coverage gap in those cases.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@claude claude[bot] claude[bot] left review comments
@dvasilas dvasilas dvasilas approved these changes
@SylvainSenechal SylvainSenechal Awaiting requested review from SylvainSenechal

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@leif-scality @bert-e @dvasilas