fix(bigtable): retry unexpected EOF errors #13157
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We see the unexpected EOF error message in logs for large scans. Apparently there is a flaky test that shows the same issue as well: googleapis#10909 Keeping the comparison by message text, because grpc-go returns a gRPC status error with the same message as io.UnexpectedEOF in some places. There are more cases that use the comparison of the error message now, and the grpc-go has some places (see https://github.com/grpc/grpc-go/blob/ae62635cb0e21ae37e7ae5f0f18aaac5e8139834/rpc_util.go#L1033) that return a gRPC status error with the error message of the io.UnexpectedEOF. So I kept the handling by error message text instead of comparing directly to io.UnexpectedEOF.
product-auto-label
bot
added
the
api: bigtable
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This has been previously discussed at #11276.
I am resubmitting the change again, since we still see the UnexpectedEOF and we are running with this patch in production to retry it.
Apparently there is a flaky test that shows the same issue as well: #10909
There are more cases that use the comparison of the error message now, and the grpc-go has some places that return a gRPC status error with the error message of the io.UnexpectedEOF.
So I kept the handling by error message text instead of comparing directly to io.UnexpectedEOF.