April 2024 - developers - lists.mariadb.org

Feedback plugin status?
by Otto Kekäläinen 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

Hi! I was about to merge a long overdue MR in Debian to enable the Feedback plugin (https://salsa.debian.org/mariadb-team/mariadb-server/-/merge_requests/16). However I noticed all the links at https://mariadb.org/about/#usage-statistics are broken. The wiki page at https://mariadb.com/kb/en/feedback-plugin/ says that the plugin is 'currently not working'. What does this mean? What is the path to get it working again? Is there a need for somebody to rewrite the stats server part? Thanks, - Otto

3 4

MariaDB/MySQL wire protocol ownership and MariaDB Connector C source code hosting?
by Otto Kekäläinen 13 Apr '24

13 Apr '24

Hi! The MariaDB wire protocol is an interplay between the MariaDB Server and the MariaDB Connector C. However, only the server is in the MariaDB Foundation's GitHub account at https://github.com/mariadb/server, and the Connector C is in the MariaDB PLC account at https://github.com/mariadb-corporation/mariadb-connector-c. Is there perhaps some plan to hand over the Connector C to the MariaDB Foundation? The reason I am asking is that the connector does not seem equally "true open source" as the server is, making changes that require coordination in both server and connector (e.g. https://github.com/mariadb-corporation/mariadb-connector-c/pull/227) kind of out-of-scope for the MariaDB Foundation, which seems counterproductive. If/when wire protocol changes might be made and changes to both server and libmariadb coordinated in an open "working group" like suggested in https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/2684, it might be very challenging for the Foundation or the open source community to drive it if the PLC staff member maintaining the connector does not participate. Also, seems the PR reviews at https://github.com/mariadb-corporation/mariadb-connector-c/pulls have been stalled since 2022. MariaDB Foundation staff are funded to facilitate reviews, but can't really be *responsible* for reviewing them as long as it is not a Foundation repository and review policies are not owned by the Foundation. It would just make a lot of sense if such a central piece of the MariaDB Server would be in the Foundation's GitHub account. The MariaDB Connector C / libmaraidb is already published and distributed by the MariadB Foundation, so moving the source code hosting over shouldn't big such a big thing, right? - Otto

3 2

Can we get MariaDB GitHub CI to consistently be green?
by Otto Kekäläinen 12 Apr '24

12 Apr '24

Hi! Thanks to everyone who has worked on polishing the CI tests and integrations. Looking at e.g. 10.11 branch[1] I see that commit ccb7a1e[2] has a green checkmark next to it and all 15 CI jobs passed. I just wanted to check if everyone developing the MariaDB Server is committed to getting the CI to be consistently green? This means that GitHub rules need to be a bit more strict, not allowing any failing tests jobs at all, and developers and managers need to agree to stop adding new commits on any release branch if it can't be done without a fully passing CI run. Thanks to Daniel's review on latest failures we know these are at the moment recurring: * MDEV-25614 Galera test failure on GCF-354 included in MDEV-33073 always green buildbot * MDEV-33785 aarch64 macos encryption.create_or_replace * MDEV-33601 galera_3nodes.galera_safe_to_bootstrap test failing * MDEV-33786 galera_3nodes.galera_vote_rejoin_mysqldump mysql_shutdown failed at line 85: I see two approaches to get to consistently green CI: 1) Stop all development and focus on just fixing these, don't continue until CI is fully green, and once it is fully green make the GitHub branch protection settings one notch stricter to not allow any new commits unless the CI is fully green so it never regresses again. 2) Disable these tests and make the rules in GitHub branch protection one notch stricter right away, and not allow any new commits unless the CI is fully green ensuring no new recurring failures are introduced. - Otto [1] https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.11 [2] https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/ccb7a1e9a15e6a47aba97f9bdbfab2e4bf…

3 4

7 PRs pending second approver - can somebody do it?
by Otto Kekäläinen 11 Apr '24

11 Apr '24

Hi Sergei, Andrew or anyone else who wants to help, These PRs have already been approved by one reviewer 2-8 weeks ago and are pending the second reviewer to approve/merge. These indicate that Sergei's review is requested, but I guess anybody could be the second reviewer: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/2169 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/2671 The indicate that Andrewi's review is requested, but I guess anybody could be the second reviewer: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/3100 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/3120 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/3125 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/3142 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pull/3154 I am sending this to the mailing list as well just to raise general awareness that while Andrew and Daniel are putting in a lot of effort to review "external" contributions, it is not enough and even approved PRs get stalled. Other core contributors should perhaps get into the habit of reviewing/approving PRs as well. If there was a rule in github.com/MariaDB/server that prevents any commits from being merged unless it has two approvals, it would both help improve the code quality AND also force core contributors to spend more time adding approvals on GitHub and thus automatically increase the likelihood that there are no one-approval PRs around for weeks and weeks without getting the second approval. - Otto

3 2

MariaDB supports DBdeployer and MySqlJS, but they don't support MariaDB?
by Otto Kekäläinen 09 Apr '24

09 Apr '24

Hi! While digging into the CI situation I noticed that https://buildbot.mariadb.org/ advertises: "We run other ecosystem tests for: * DBdeployer * MySqlJS" However, when I browse https://github.com/mysqljs/mysql and https://github.com/datacharmer/dbdeployer there are zero mentions of MariaDB. Just wondering is anybody working to get them to mention MariaDB in their docs? If they are tested as part of the MariaDB CI, surely they should reciprocate and at least tell in their README that MariaDB is also supported. Maybe somebody from the MariaDB Foundation could send a PR to update their README, so they don't need to do anything else than just accept it. This was done for example in https://github.com/mysql-net/MySqlConnector/pull/1460/files by Daniel Lenski, and now that project mentions both MySQL and MariaDB. - Otto

3 2

Safe use of sprint/printf/fprintf in MariaDB code base
by Otto Kekäläinen 08 Apr '24

08 Apr '24

Hi all, Reading about the xz-utils backdoor authors submission of converting safe_fprintf() to fprintf() in libarchive[1] presumably in order to introduce intentional vulnerability reminded me that the MariaDB code base still has a plenty unsafe sprint/printf/fprintf use that can easily be found with scanners such as Flawfinder[2] and cppcheck[3]. There are currently 6 merge requests open by two authors (CC'd) to fix some of these issues[4]. Could we please have some more attention on these by the core contributors? If core contributors are not happy with the submissions, could you perhaps write your own safe functions (there are already some in m_string.h[5]) like many other projects seem to have (also libarchive had[6]) and then ask all contributors to use them consistently? Use of specific memory safe functions could also be mandated via the coding standards[7]. [1] https://github.com/libarchive/libarchive/pull/1609 [2] https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/11.5/.gitlab-ci.yml#L461-L489 [3] https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/11.5/.gitlab-ci.yml#L522-L554 [4] https://github.com/MariaDB/server/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sprintf+ [5] https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/11.5/include/m_string.h [6] https://github.com/libarchive/libarchive/blob/6110e9c82d8ba830c3440f36b9904… [7] https://github.com/MariaDB/server/blob/11.5/CODING_STANDARDS.md

2 3

question about Revision #f24038b851
by ShawnYan 04 Apr '24

04 Apr '24

hi, there, when I check release notes, https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-10419-changelog/ <https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-10419-changelog/ > I notice this commit record, Revision #f24038b851 2021-03-07 14:06:01 +0100 mark Aria allocations for temp tables as MY_THREAD_SPECIFIC but, it can not find in the jira system, can't learn more detail/background about this commit, could anyone help with it, may we know which task refer to this commit? https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/f24038b851 <https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/f24038b851 > Thank you. hi, there, when I check release notes, https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-10419-changelog/ <https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-10419-changelog/ > I notice this commit record, Revision #f24038b851 2021-03-07 14:06:01 +0100 mark Aria allocations for temp tables as MY_THREAD_SPECIFIC but, it can not find in the jira system, can't learn more detail about this commit, could anyone help with it, may we know which task refer to this commit? https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/f24038b851 <https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commit/f24038b851 > Thank you.

2 1