Open jaresty opened 7 years ago
Hi there!
We use Pivotal Tracker to provide visibility into what our team is working on. A story for this issue has been automatically created.
The current status is as follows:
This comment, as well as the labels on the issue, will be automatically updated as the status in Tracker changes.
@jaresty, how are you creating a lock with the same name in the claim and unclaim pools? Please clarify what your jobs were doing and how they interacted with the locks.
Hi @jtarchie,
cf-deployment/fresh/unclaimed/luna
cf-deployment/fresh/claimed/luna
. We would expect this to fail, but it did not. After the task succeeded, we could no longer use the pool without manually deleting one of the luna locks.
You can get a pool into a bad state where it has a lock by the same name in both the claimed and the unclaimed state. You do this by adding a lock with a name that matches the name of an existing lock, but adding it the opposite state of claimedness from the existing lock.
For example, you if you have a pool with a claimed lock called
knox
, and you add an unclaimed lock calledknox
, it will happily create and ruin your pool.If you try to add a lock to a pool and state that already contains a lock by that name, it will fail to add (and retry). It gives the following (obscure) output:
We'd prefer it if, instead, it said something like this in both cases:
Would you be open to receiving a pull request that implemented this?
Signed-off by: @anEXPer