execution_field_size_limit_kb doesn't handle correctly -1 case

Bug #1768450 reported by Vitalii Solodilov
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Mistral
Fix Released
Medium
Vitalii Solodilov

Bug Description

The config documentation says about execution_field_size_limit_kb: "Use -1 for no limit"
But in practice Mistral trim message by 100 symbols.

Test case:
Set execution_field_size_limit_kb as -1 in mistral config.
---
version: '2.0'
wf:
  description: Test execution description
  tasks:
    task1:
      action: std.fail
      input:
        error_data:
          a: '[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99]'

Actual result:
<output>
{"result": "Failure caused by error in tasks: task1\n\n task1 [task_ex_id=8198f9d6-e719-4dff-9a9e-9b6a97035f8c] -..."}
</output>

Expect workflow output:
<output>
{"result": "Failure caused by error in tasks: task1\n\n task1 [task_ex_id=c7f7c398-0acb-4191-a4ee-65a0d93974cb] -> {\"a\": \"[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99]\"}\n [action_ex_id=8bbc0859-d544-403c-840a-85aa51255e0f, idx=0]: {u'a': u'[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99]'}\n"}
</output>

summary: - execution_field_size_limit_kb doesn't handle correct -1 case
+ execution_field_size_limit_kb doesn't handle correctly -1 case
Changed in mistral:
assignee: nobody → Vitalii Solodilov (mcdoker18)
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix proposed to mistral (master)

Fix proposed to branch: master
Review: https://review.openstack.org/565665

Changed in mistral:
status: New → In Progress
Dougal Matthews (d0ugal)
Changed in mistral:
milestone: none → rocky-2
importance: Undecided → Medium
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix merged to mistral (master)

Reviewed: https://review.openstack.org/565665
Committed: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/mistral/commit/?id=2e710e792d3e70c18c2636e23feb44e19284b35c
Submitter: Zuul
Branch: master

commit 2e710e792d3e70c18c2636e23feb44e19284b35c
Author: Vitalii Solodilov <email address hidden>
Date: Wed May 2 12:12:14 2018 +0400

    Fixed workflow output in case of execution_field_size_limit_kb

    Now if length parameter in cut functions will be negative value that
    there is no restriction on length.

    Change-Id: I116d0bcb5663666ba4d280237a03d687de71f549
    Closes-bug: #1768450
    Signed-off-by: Vitalii Solodilov <email address hidden>

Changed in mistral:
status: In Progress → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix included in openstack/mistral 7.0.0.0b2

This issue was fixed in the openstack/mistral 7.0.0.0b2 development milestone.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.