Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TLA+ spec for safekeeper membership change #9966

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025
Merged

TLA+ spec for safekeeper membership change #9966

merged 9 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025

Conversation

arssher
Copy link
Contributor

@arssher arssher commented Dec 2, 2024

Problem

We want to define the algorithm for safekeeper membership change.

Summary of changes

Add spec for it, several models and logs of checking them.

ref #8699

@arssher arssher requested a review from a team as a code owner December 2, 2024 14:30
@arssher arssher requested review from jcsp and problame and removed request for a team and jcsp December 2, 2024 14:30
@problame problame self-assigned this Dec 2, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2024

7095 tests run: 6797 passed, 0 failed, 298 skipped (full report)


Flaky tests (3)

Postgres 17

Postgres 15

Code coverage* (full report)

  • functions: 31.3% (8401 of 26877 functions)
  • lines: 48.0% (66681 of 139059 lines)

* collected from Rust tests only


The comment gets automatically updated with the latest test results
5c8aee7 at 2024-12-30T15:45:59.103Z :recycle:

Base automatically changed from sk-tla to main December 2, 2024 16:11
Copy link
Contributor

@problame problame left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Initial review of everything reachable from Next and invariants.

As with static spec, there are no liveness invariants, right?

Let's have a meeting on my questions on >= vs = in StartChange/FinishChange/AbortChange . I think I'm not seeing something / misunderstood the simplifications.

By the way should document the spec's simplifcations at the top, simliar to how we do for static config.

safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Show resolved Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Show resolved Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Show resolved Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Show resolved Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/ProposerAcceptorReconfig.tla Show resolved Hide resolved
@arssher arssher force-pushed the sk-tla-membership branch 2 times, most recently from b84490f to 8603294 Compare December 11, 2024 04:11
@arssher arssher mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2024
@arssher arssher requested a review from problame December 27, 2024 13:22
@arssher
Copy link
Contributor Author

arssher commented Dec 30, 2024

Addressed all comments, please have another look.

As with static spec, there are no liveness invariants, right?

Yes.

By the way should document the spec's simplifcations at the top, simliar to how we do for static config.

Done.

@arssher arssher added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 9, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 030ab1c Jan 9, 2025
82 checks passed
@arssher arssher deleted the sk-tla-membership branch January 9, 2025 12:27
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