Skip to content

Rebase SqlAlchemy_2.0 Support#433

Open
nisar123456 wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2
Open

Rebase SqlAlchemy_2.0 Support#433
nisar123456 wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2

Conversation

@nisar123456
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 4 times, most recently from 5f21ed4 to 5989901 Compare December 4, 2024 14:34
@tbachman tbachman mentioned this pull request Jan 2, 2025
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 2 times, most recently from 1043918 to d324087 Compare January 27, 2025 14:27
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 2 times, most recently from b53604c to 455b6e3 Compare January 29, 2025 05:07
@nisar123456 nisar123456 requested a review from irathore February 7, 2025 04:53
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 11 times, most recently from 14524e0 to 3f8a168 Compare May 27, 2025 08:26
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 2 times, most recently from 936f2eb to 96cce50 Compare October 3, 2025 04:45
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 6 times, most recently from 69da5e8 to 3d2c7c2 Compare October 8, 2025 07:23
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 3 times, most recently from 842f8ff to 6eb4ca1 Compare October 13, 2025 09:12
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tbachman tbachman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I didn't look through the entire patch - there are a lot of cases where code that was previously safe under concurrency would no longer be protected. I'd like to get a better understanding of why the concurrency there was removed before going further in this patch.

context, resource, overwrite=True,
fix_ownership=monitored)
# Declare victory for the created object
if isinstance(resource, aim_resource.AciRoot):
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.

Same concern here - the update is no longer atomic. What was the reason to remove the transaction?

existing = self.manager.get(context, resource)
if existing and existing.monitored:
self.manager.delete(context, resource)
existing = self.manager.get(context, resource)
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.

And here - the get/delete code could be concurrent, and therefore needs the protection of a transaction.

phys_domains=phys_domains,
epg_name=epg_name)
return l3out_db
tenant = resource.Tenant(name=l3out.tenant_name)
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.

Same concern here.

@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 2 times, most recently from 817357a to 7678ba1 Compare December 10, 2025 14:21
@nisar123456 nisar123456 requested a review from tbachman December 10, 2025 14:22
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 2 times, most recently from 11686c0 to 4c37ddd Compare December 18, 2025 05:24
@nisar123456 nisar123456 force-pushed the Rebase_SqlAlchemy_2 branch 2 times, most recently from 67ff3c5 to 86bed04 Compare January 6, 2026 06:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants