ambari-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Costel Radulescu" <cradule...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 33848: Blueprints processor needs stronger validation of Blueprint JSON structure
Date Thu, 14 May 2015 09:09:56 GMT


> On May 12, 2015, 2:45 p.m., John Speidel wrote:
> > Looks good although I would prefer that you moved this validation logic to BlueprintFactory
which is where all of the current validation logic exists.

Thanks John, I chose not to put the structure validation logic into the BlueprintFactory because
it would require that the Factory know about either the requestInfoProperties or the Blueprint
in JSON format before hand.


- Costel


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/33848/#review83399
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 14, 2015, 8:53 a.m., Emil Anca wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33848/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 14, 2015, 8:53 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Costel Radulescu, John Speidel, Robert Levas, and Robert Nettleton.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-10931
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-10931
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The Blueprints processor needs to have stronger validation during the process of handling
a POST for a newly-submitted Blueprint from a REST client.
> The Blueprints structure requires that the "configurations" element be an array of Maps,
with each Map representing a given configuration type ("core-site", "storm-site", etc).
> Typically, the configurations structure should look like:
> ""configurations": [
> {
> "mapred-env": {
> "properties":
> { "mapreduce_log_dir_prefix": "/grid/0/log/hadoop-mapreduce" }
> }
> },
> { "mapred-site": {
> "properties":
> { "install-test-mapred-site": "install-test-mapred-site-VALUE" }
> }
> },
> { "yarn-env": {
> "properties":
> { "yarn_log_dir_prefix": "/grid/0/log/hadoop" }
> }
> }
> ]"
> The snippet above is just an example to illustrate the expected format.
> Recent changes to the Blueprint's structure to handle "properties_attributes" (such as
"final") have modified the structure of a Blueprint, so that configuration properties are
now contained in a "properties" map, internal to each configuration type. Creating new Blueprints
using this newer format (the older format is still acceptable to the processor) require that
the configuration types are still enclosed in a map, even though an internal map is also present,
which may be a source of confusion.
> An example of an incorrect format would be:
> ""configurations": [
> {
> "mapred-env": {
> "properties":
> { "mapreduce_log_dir_prefix": "/grid/0/log/hadoop-mapreduce" }
> },
> "mapred-site": {
> "properties":
> { "install-test-mapred-site": "install-test-mapred-site-VALUE" }
> },
> "yarn-env": {
> "properties":
> { "yarn_log_dir_prefix": "/grid/0/log/hadoop" }
> }
> ]
> "
> Please note that in the example above a single map is created, with all configuration
elements being added to that entry's configuration type. This causes a corrupted Blueprint
to be stored and used for deployments, since all configuration elements added in the original
Blueprint will be registered under one of the config types used in the original Blueprint.
This will cause many types of cluster startup failures, as the configuration elements will
be added to incorrect locations.
> When the Blueprint processor receives a POST submission with a new Blueprint that includes
this incorrect format for "configurations", the processor must reject this submission, and
send back a relevant error code/message, so that the user can resolve this problem prior to
attempting a cluster deployment.
> This issue will not affect the older format for Blueprints, and so any backwards-compatible
Blueprints used should work fine. This issue will only occur when new Blueprints are submitted
that use the newer syntax/format for defining configuration properties (with support for properties_attributes)
as well.
> This JIRA is being created to track this issue, as it could potentially be a user experience
issue going forward, and should probably be resolved in Ambari 2.1, if possible.
> 
> 
> Problem: Blueprint "configurations" element structure is not validated which leads to
cluster creations error
> Solution: The "configuration" element is checked for the correct structure as a List
of Maps containing a single configuration type
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/internal/BlueprintResourceProvider.java
aab5395 
>   ambari-server/src/test/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/internal/BlueprintResourceProviderTest.java
118a7be 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33848/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> mvn clean test
> 
> 
> Performed the following functional tests:
> 
> 1) tested that the server returns an error when saving a blueprint with invalid structure
for the "configurations" element
> 2) tested that the server saves several correctly structured blueprints:
>     a) blueprint having an empty "configurations" element
>     b) blueprint having "configurations" with a single "configuration-type" element
>     c) blueprint having "configurations" with multiple "configuration-type" elements
properly structured
> 
> Added new unit tests to account for success scenarions (a) and (b).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Emil Anca
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message