Skip to content

Conversation

@mike-pt
Copy link
Contributor

@mike-pt mike-pt commented Jun 22, 2024

Some hosted/managed environments like google CloudSQL, might not support this type of statement (i.e. when using replication and GTID) as seen in #30631

Since we are dropping the table anyway it seems a regular CREATE statement should work fine here.

Closes #30631

Signed-off-by: mike-pt [email protected]

@mike-pt mike-pt requested a review from a team as a code owner June 22, 2024 08:11
@mike-pt mike-pt force-pushed the patch-1 branch 2 times, most recently from 50cbf2d to 0b9c43f Compare June 24, 2024 12:34
@mike-pt
Copy link
Contributor Author

mike-pt commented Jun 24, 2024

rebased with main

@pedroigor
Copy link
Contributor

@mike-pt
Copy link
Contributor Author

mike-pt commented Jul 1, 2024

@mike-pt Please, see https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/actions/runs/9645408727/job/26890406244?pr=30669#step:4:2086.

I see the issue now, I missed one more DROP statement still using TEMPORARY.
Should be good now

@mike-pt
Copy link
Contributor Author

mike-pt commented Jul 17, 2024

@pedroigor is there any other pending action from me on this?

@codespearhead
Copy link

codespearhead commented Oct 3, 2024

It sounds like a reasonable fix.

Could you remove the merge commit to maintain a linear Git history?

To do so, run:

git clone --single-branch --branch patch-1 [email protected]:mike-pt/keycloak.git
cd keycloak

# Remove the merge commit from your local branch
git reset --hard HEAD~1

# Rebase your local branch onto main
git remote add upstream [email protected]:keycloak/keycloak.git
git pull --rebase upstream main

# Make sure the only commit in it is signed
git commit --amend --signoff

# Force push your local branch to remove the previously pushed merge commit by resetting the remote branch
git push --force

Additionally, I suggest adding the following line at the end of the PR, as it hints that you haven’t overlooked this requirement in the commit message.

Signed-off-by: mike-pt <[email protected]>

Some hosted/managed environments like google CloudSQL, might not support this type of statement (i.e. when using replication and GTID)

Since we are dropping the table anyway it seems a regular CREATE statement should work fine here.

Signed-off-by: mike-pt <[email protected]>
@mike-pt
Copy link
Contributor Author

mike-pt commented Oct 3, 2024

@codespearhead recommendations addressed

@ahus1 ahus1 self-assigned this Oct 18, 2024
Copy link

@keycloak-github-bot keycloak-github-bot bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unreported flaky test detected, please review

@keycloak-github-bot
Copy link

Unreported flaky test detected

If the flaky tests below are affected by the changes, please review and update the changes accordingly. Otherwise, a maintainer should report the flaky tests prior to merging the PR.

org.keycloak.testsuite.webauthn.WebAuthnIdlessTest#testWebAuthnIDLessAndWebAuthnAndWebAuthnPasswordlessLogin

Keycloak CI - WebAuthn IT (chrome)

java.lang.AssertionError: Expected SelectAuthenticatorPage but was Sign in to test (https://localhost:8543/auth/realms/test/protocol/openid-connect/auth?response_type=code&client_id=test-app&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A8543%2Fauth%2Frealms%2Fmaster%2Fapp%2Fauth&state=9f44a0d7-b582-446d-8253-968cd37122c2&scope=openid)
	at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:89)
	at org.junit.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:42)
	at org.keycloak.testsuite.pages.AbstractPage.assertCurrent(AbstractPage.java:47)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:103)
...

Report flaky test

Copy link
Contributor

@ahus1 ahus1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thank you for the change.
@pedroigor - are you ok if we merge this?

@mike-pt
Copy link
Contributor Author

mike-pt commented Nov 1, 2024

@pedroigor is there anything blocking this on my side?

@mike-pt
Copy link
Contributor Author

mike-pt commented Nov 27, 2024

@pedroigor sorry for the re ping but its been a month since my last comment and I'm not sure if there is something blocking this or now? It seems it was already approved just needs to be merged in?

@pedroigor
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry for the delay. Thanks!

@pedroigor pedroigor merged commit 195ace8 into keycloak:main Nov 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Upgrade to 25 throws: Statement violates GTID consistency

4 participants