[PATCH v2] replication: fix exit with ER_NO_SUCH_USER during bootstrap

[Vladimir Davydov]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 05:56:16PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote:
> diff --git a/src/box/applier.cc b/src/box/applier.cc
> index dbb4d05f9..02ec729bc 100644
> --- a/src/box/applier.cc
> +++ b/src/box/applier.cc
> @@ -602,8 +602,12 @@ applier_f(va_list ap)
>  				applier_log_error(applier, e);
>  				applier_disconnect(applier, APPLIER_LOADING);
>  				goto reconnect;
> -			} else if (e->errcode() == ER_ACCESS_DENIED) {
> -				/* Invalid configuration */
> +			} else if (e->errcode() == ER_ACCESS_DENIED ||
> +				   e->errcode() == ER_NO_SUCH_USER) {
> +				/*
> +				 * Invalid configuration or box.once()
> +				 * hasn't finished on bootstrap master.
> +				 */

Please leave the old comment. box.once() is just one way to configure a
cluster. No need to mention it explicitly here.

>  				applier_log_error(applier, e);
>  				applier_disconnect(applier, APPLIER_DISCONNECTED);
>  				goto reconnect;
> diff --git a/test/replication/autobootstrap.test.lua b/test/replication/autobootstrap.test.lua
> index 752d5f317..bbf6f6512 100644
> --- a/test/replication/autobootstrap.test.lua
> +++ b/test/replication/autobootstrap.test.lua
> @@ -108,3 +108,13 @@ _ = test_run:cmd("switch default")
>  -- Stop servers
>  --
>  test_run:drop_cluster(SERVERS)
> +
> +--
> +-- Test case for gh-3637. Before the fix replica would exit with
> +-- an error. Now check that we don't hang and successfully connect.
> +--
> +SERVERS = {'replica_bootstrap1', 'replica_bootstrap2'}
> +test_run:create_cluster(SERVERS, "replication", {args="0.1"})
> +test_run:wait_fullmesh(SERVERS)
> +print("ok")

This is redundant, obviously.

> +test_run:drop_cluster(SERVERS)
> diff --git a/test/replication/replica_bootstrap.lua b/test/replication/replica_bootstrap.lua
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..9a6c5f4a0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/test/replication/replica_bootstrap.lua
> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> +#!/usr/bin/env tarantool
> +
> +local INSTANCE_ID = string.match(arg[0], "%d")
> +local USER = 'cluster'
> +local PASSWORD = 'pass'
> +local SOCKET_DIR = require('fio').cwd()
> +local TIMEOUT = tonumber(arg[1])
> +local CON_TIMEOUT = arg[2] and tonumber(arg[2]) or 100 * 365 * 86400
> +
> +local function instance_uri(instance_id)
> +    return SOCKET_DIR..'/replica_bootstrap'..instance_id..'.sock'
> +end
> +
> +require('console').listen(os.getenv('ADMIN'))
> +
> +box.cfg({
> +    listen=instance_uri(INSTANCE_ID),
> +    replication={
> +        USER..':'..PASSWORD..'@'..instance_uri(1),
> +        USER..':'..PASSWORD..'@'..instance_uri(2)
> +    },
> +    replication_timeout=TIMEOUT,
> +    replication_connect_timeout=CON_TIMEOUT
> +})
> +
> +box.once('bootstrap', function()
> +    require('fiber').sleep(3 * TIMEOUT)
> +    box.schema.user.create(USER, {password=PASSWORD})
> +    box.schema.user.grant(USER, 'replication')
> +end)

I don't like this new script, because, despite its generic name and
arguments, we are unlikely to be able to ever reuse it for any other
test.

I suggest you try to rewrite the test without creating a cluster of two
nodes. I think you could instead connect a single replica to the default
server (the one that runs the test). Then you would call the script
'replica_auth.lua' and pass the user:password pair in the first argument
and the timeouts in the second and the third arguments. It would look
more generic and reusable then, similar to 'replica_quorum.lua'.