Documented FAILED_PRECONDITION as a possible error for GetMetadataDelta#591
Merged
bswartz merged 1 commit intocontainer-storage-interface:masterfrom Sep 17, 2025
Conversation
Member
|
s/operation would work/operation would proceed/
…On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 2:17 PM Carl Braganza ***@***.***> wrote:
If changed block tracking has not been enabled in the underlying storage
subsystem then GetMetadataDelta will fail.
This PR documents the gRPC error code that should be returned when this
happens.
*What type of PR is this?*
This is a documentation change only.
*What this PR does / why we need it*:
This provides information to CSI driver developers on the precise error
code to return for this error, and
guidance to the backup application developer on how to respond.
*Which issue(s) this PR fixes*:
Fixes #
*Special notes for your reviewer*:
This change was discussed in the Data Protection Working Group meeting.
*Does this PR introduce an API-breaking change?*:
NONE
------------------------------
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#591
Commit Summary
- 23cdc67
<23cdc67>
Added FAILED_PRECONDITION as a possible error for GetMetadataDelta to
File Changes
(1 file
<https://github.com/container-storage-interface/spec/pull/591/files>)
- *M* spec.md
<https://github.com/container-storage-interface/spec/pull/591/files#diff-bc6661da34ecae62fbe724bb93fd69b91a7f81143f2683a81163231de7e3b545>
(5)
Patch Links:
- https://github.com/container-storage-interface/spec/pull/591.patch
- https://github.com/container-storage-interface/spec/pull/591.diff
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#591>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR5KLDL4QT2XAJAKOQLSXT3FGI5PAVCNFSM6AAAAACABDXIROVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZTGE3TEOBYHEZTMOI>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
indicate that changed block tracking has not been enabled in the underlying storage subsystem.
carlbraganza
force-pushed
the
cbt-not-enabled-error
branch
from
23cdc67 to
ca57aa6
Compare
Contributor
|
lgtm |
|
@carlbraganza will the similar change be required for GetMetadataAllocated() API as well, mainly for cases like CBT is not enabled on underlying disk/data copy ? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If changed block tracking has not been enabled in the underlying storage subsystem then GetMetadataDelta will fail.
This PR documents the gRPC error code that should be returned when this happens.
What type of PR is this?
This is a documentation change only.
What this PR does / why we need it:
This provides information to CSI driver developers on the precise error code to return for this error, and
guidance to the backup application developer on how to respond.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
This change was discussed in the Data Protection Working Group meeting.
Does this PR introduce an API-breaking change?: