Skip to content

Fixed two issues with handling of processing dependent archives #20679

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 15, 2023

Conversation

diosmosis
Copy link
Member

@diosmosis diosmosis commented May 7, 2023

Description:

Bugs fixed:

setting whether an archiving request is the root one or not as an instance property of Parameters does not work because when querying archive data for child periods, we will create entirely new instances (in CoreAdminHome\API::prepareArchive()). So instead, use a static variable. This properly prevents recursion here.

fix edge case where Goals initiates archiving far more than necessary when there are no conversions (so no data in goals reports) but there are visits (so archiving will still be executed). This was always an issue, but is is far more visible now since we aggregate one blob at a time, and thus query archive IDs once per report. So for every Goals report, we'd archive and try to process dependent archives, even though there are no conversions. And since there is no report data, nothing will be inserted, and we'll try to archive again when we move on to the next report.

See #20555

Review

diosmosis added 3 commits May 7, 2023 11:20
…ting whether an archiving request is the root one or not as an instance property of Parameters does not work because when querying archive data for child periods, we will create entirely new instances. so instead, use a static variable 2) fix edge case where Goals initiates archiving far more than necessary when there are no conversions (so no data in goals reports) but there are visits (so archiving will still be executed). this issue is far more visible now since we aggregate one blob at a time, and thus query archive IDs once per report
@diosmosis diosmosis added the Needs Review PRs that need a code review label May 7, 2023
@diosmosis diosmosis added this to the 4.14.x milestone May 7, 2023
@sgiehl sgiehl merged commit 1276000 into 4.x-dev May 15, 2023
@sgiehl sgiehl deleted the apply-20555 branch May 15, 2023 07:25
@sgiehl sgiehl changed the title Apply #20555 to 4.x-dev - fix two issues with handling of processing dependent archives Fixed two issues with handling of processing dependent archives Jul 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Needs Review PRs that need a code review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants