[SERVER-55175] Maintain original read concern for $currentOp in passthrough suites that change read concern Created: 12/Mar/21  Updated: 29/Oct/23  Resolved: 19/Aug/21

Status: Closed
Project: Core Server
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 5.1.0-rc0

Type: Improvement Priority: Major - P3
Reporter: Katherine Wu (Inactive) Assignee: Katherine Wu (Inactive)
Resolution: Fixed Votes: 0
Labels: quick-tech-debt
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
Backports
Problem/Incident
Related
related to SERVER-47603 Rewrite db.currentOp() shell helper i... Closed
Backwards Compatibility: Fully Compatible
Participants:
Linked BF Score: 70

 Description   

With SERVER-47603 the db.currentOp() shell helper uses the aggregation $currentOp stage instead of calling the currentOp server command. Both only support read concern "local", however passthrough suites that change read concern only change the read concern of the aggregation command and maintain the original read concern of the currentOp command. With the change from the server command to $currentOp, some jstests that use the db.currentOp() shell helper had the assumes_read_concern_unchanged blocklist tag added. To add this test coverage back, we should skip changing an aggregate command's read concern in passthroughs that change read concern if it has a $currentOp stage.



 Comments   
Comment by Vivian Ge (Inactive) [ 06/Oct/21 ]

Updating the fixversion since branching activities occurred yesterday. This ticket will be in rc0 when it’s been triggered. For more active release information, please keep an eye on #server-release. Thank you!

Comment by Githook User [ 17/Aug/21 ]

Author:

{'name': 'Katherine Wu', 'email': 'katherine.wu@mongodb.com', 'username': 'kaywux'}

Message: SERVER-55175 Maintain original read concern and read preference for $currentOp in passthrough suites
Branch: master
https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/commit/afdebef974ba087301976e32e36e78802cf89dc8

Comment by Charlie Swanson [ 07/Apr/21 ]

I see! Thank you both!

Comment by Charlie Swanson [ 07/Apr/21 ]

katherine.wu and ted.tuckman could one or both of you help me understand how actionable and important this is right now? Is this follow-up work we can do independently and after we revive SERVER-47603? Could we defer this for 2 weeks and look at some ongoing failures in the meantime?

Generated at Thu Feb 08 05:35:42 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.7.1#970001-sha1:2222b88b221c4928ef0de3161136cc90c8356a66.