[fix][broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_clusters, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating #24860

poorbarcode · 2025-10-16T12:51:23Z

Motivation

Before PIP-321 Introduce allowed-cluster at the namespace level, Pulsar does not support enabling topic level Geo Replication without enabling namespace level Geo Replication, because the policies namespace.replication_clusters has two meanings:

Which cluster is allowed to access the namespace?
Which clusters enabled Geo Replication?

PIP-321 Introduce allowed-cluster at the namespace level defined a new policy namespace.allowed_clusters, which splits the two definitions.

if allowed_clusters is not empty
- allowed_clusters can be used to define which cluster is allowed to access the namespace, if it is set.
otherwise: the replication_clusters defines both statuses.

3 Issues

PIP-321 did not complete all the adaptations of codes, such as follows

1. Expected behaviour: when a cluster permission was removed from a namespace, Pulsar will unload the namespace to prevent the topics under the namespace from being loaded up again.
- Issue: the cluster is still defined allowed by namespace.allowed_clusters, the namespace is also unloaded. More importantly, in this case, all brokers will trigger an unloading, which will cause this namespace to remain unavailable for a long time. Every time any policy of the namespace is updated, unload will be triggered again for a round, which will cause the problem to become so serious as to be uncontrollable. The test testUpdateNamespacePolicies is used to reproduce the issue.
1. Expected behaviour: a namespace can only be removed if only one cluster has permission to access it.
- Issue: the namespace can be deleted even if allowed_cluster is defined as 2 clusters are allowed to access. The test testDeleteNamespaceIfTwoClustersAllowed is used to reproduce the issue.
1. Expected behaviour: broker will unload the namespace if the isolation policy is changed, to make the new policy apply.
- Issue: the namespace will not be unloaded if the allowed permission is defined by namespace.allowed_cluster. The test testUpdateNamespaceIsolationPolicy is used to reproduce the issue.

Modifications

Fix the 3 issues
Rather than check replication_clusters and allowed_clusters anywhere, use a common method to deal with them, including the following checks
- Whether a cluster is allowed to access a namaspace.
- New policy checking.

Documentation

doc
doc-required
doc-not-needed
doc-complete

Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository: x

pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/admin/impl/NamespacesBase.java

lhotari · 2025-10-27T17:52:43Z

please check this test failure:

  Error:  Tests run: 9, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 4, Time elapsed: 3.943 s <<< FAILURE! -- in org.apache.pulsar.broker.lookup.http.HttpTopicLookupv2Test
  Error:  org.apache.pulsar.broker.lookup.http.HttpTopicLookupv2Test.testValidateReplicationSettingsOnNamespace -- Time elapsed: 0.018 s <<< FAILURE!
  java.lang.AssertionError: expected [404] but found [412]
  	at org.testng.Assert.fail(Assert.java:110)
  	at org.testng.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:1577)
  	at org.testng.Assert.assertEqualsImpl(Assert.java:149)
  	at org.testng.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:131)
  	at org.testng.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:1418)
  	at org.testng.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:1382)
  	at org.testng.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:1428)
  	at org.apache.pulsar.broker.lookup.http.HttpTopicLookupv2Test.testValidateReplicationSettingsOnNamespace(HttpTopicLookupv2Test.java:281)
  	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:103)
  	at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:580)
  	at org.testng.internal.invokers.MethodInvocationHelper.invokeMethod(MethodInvocationHelper.java:139)
  	at org.testng.internal.invokers.InvokeMethodRunnable.runOne(InvokeMethodRunnable.java:47)
  	at org.testng.internal.invokers.InvokeMethodRunnable.call(InvokeMethodRunnable.java:76)
  	at org.testng.internal.invokers.InvokeMethodRunnable.call(InvokeMethodRunnable.java:11)
  	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:317)
  	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1144)
  	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:642)
  	at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:1583)

poorbarcode · 2025-10-29T05:01:08Z

please check this test failure:

Sure

codecov-commenter · 2025-10-30T07:21:29Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 74.48980% with 25 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 74.20%. Comparing base (a091ea7) to head (1b1d7fd).
⚠️ Report is 27 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...pache/pulsar/broker/admin/impl/NamespacesBase.java	62.50%	9 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
...g/apache/pulsar/common/policies/data/Policies.java	72.00%	5 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...rg/apache/pulsar/broker/service/BrokerService.java	85.71%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #24860      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     74.29%   74.20%   -0.10%     
+ Complexity    33825    33471     -354     
============================================
  Files          1913     1913              
  Lines        149281   149375      +94     
  Branches      17325    17347      +22     
============================================
- Hits         110902   110837      -65     
- Misses        29540    29682     +142     
- Partials       8839     8856      +17

Flag	Coverage Δ
inttests	`26.41% <19.38%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
systests	`22.78% <14.28%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
unittests	`73.73% <74.48%> (-0.08%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../org/apache/pulsar/broker/admin/AdminResource.java	`75.57% <ø> (ø)`
.../apache/pulsar/broker/admin/impl/ClustersBase.java	`84.08% <100.00%> (+0.05%)`	⬆️
...pulsar/broker/admin/impl/PersistentTopicsBase.java	`69.48% <ø> (ø)`
...rg/apache/pulsar/broker/service/AbstractTopic.java	`88.43% <100.00%> (+0.08%)`	⬆️
...sar/broker/service/persistent/PersistentTopic.java	`79.14% <100.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
...rg/apache/pulsar/broker/web/PulsarWebResource.java	`65.15% <100.00%> (-0.06%)`	⬇️
...rg/apache/pulsar/broker/service/BrokerService.java	`83.31% <85.71%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
...g/apache/pulsar/common/policies/data/Policies.java	`59.82% <72.00%> (+3.30%)`	⬆️
...pache/pulsar/broker/admin/impl/NamespacesBase.java	`76.49% <62.50%> (-0.28%)`	⬇️

... and 95 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

lhotari · 2025-10-31T10:36:07Z

@poorbarcode Should this fix target also branch-3.0?

…rs, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating (#24860) (cherry picked from commit 39bb675)

poorbarcode · 2025-10-31T12:03:59Z

@lhotari

Should this fix target also branch-3.0?

Following the rule described on the website, I think we can skip to cherry-pick it into branch-3.0 since it is not s security issue. If other committers need it, they can drive cherry-picking.

lhotari · 2025-10-31T12:11:18Z

Following the rule described on the website, I think we can skip to cherry-pick it into branch-3.0 since it is not s security issue. If other committers need it, they can drive cherry-picking.

@poorbarcode The support policy is about Apache Pulsar PMC's commitment to perform releases. If there's a severe bug that impacts branch-3.0, it makes sense to target the branch-3.0 as long as necessary.
Since this seems to be an important bug fix, wouldn't it make sense to cherry-pick also to branch-3.0 ? There are a lot of community users that haven't yet upgraded to 4.0.x and beyond.

…rs, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating (apache#24860) (cherry picked from commit 39bb675) (cherry picked from commit a8af8f9)

poorbarcode added 4 commits October 16, 2025 18:15

init

929a94c

add test testDeleteNamespaceIfTwoClustersAllowed

248a438

add test testUpdateNamespacePolicies

942c0c9

final commit

8fc9afa

poorbarcode added this to the 4.2.0 milestone Oct 16, 2025

poorbarcode requested review from RobertIndie, Technoboy-, codelipenghui and coderzc October 16, 2025 12:51

poorbarcode self-assigned this Oct 16, 2025

poorbarcode added release/4.1.2 release/4.0.8 labels Oct 16, 2025

github-actions bot added the doc-not-needed Your PR changes do not impact docs label Oct 16, 2025

lhotari reviewed Oct 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/admin/impl/NamespacesBase.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

poorbarcode changed the title ~~[fix] [broker]~~ [fix] [broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_clusters, such as namespace deletion and namesapce policies updating Oct 16, 2025

Technoboy- added the ready-to-test label Oct 22, 2025

Technoboy- closed this Oct 22, 2025

Technoboy- reopened this Oct 22, 2025

poorbarcode added 3 commits October 29, 2025 17:56

fix tests

bfffcd1

checkstyle

35957c6

checkstyle

f9ebc24

poorbarcode force-pushed the fix/allowed_clusters branch from ba51818 to f9ebc24 Compare October 29, 2025 10:03

poorbarcode added 3 commits October 29, 2025 20:19

fix tests

d8d7cca

fix tests

6cc613a

fix tests

1b1d7fd

poorbarcode requested a review from lhotari October 30, 2025 07:50

Technoboy- approved these changes Oct 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

codelipenghui approved these changes Oct 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

codelipenghui merged commit 39bb675 into apache:master Oct 30, 2025
96 of 98 checks passed

lhotari pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2025

[fix][broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_cluste…

c50696f

…rs, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating (#24860) (cherry picked from commit 39bb675)

lhotari pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2025

[fix][broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_cluste…

a8af8f9

…rs, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating (#24860) (cherry picked from commit 39bb675)

lhotari added cherry-picked/branch-4.0 cherry-picked/branch-4.1 labels Oct 31, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

[fix][broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_clusters, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating #24860

[fix][broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_clusters, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating #24860

Uh oh!

poorbarcode commented Oct 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lhotari commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

poorbarcode commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lhotari commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

poorbarcode commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

lhotari commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

[fix][broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_clusters, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating #24860

[fix][broker] Fix wrong behaviour when using namespace.allowed_clusters, such as namespace deletion and namespace policies updating #24860

Uh oh!

Conversation

poorbarcode commented Oct 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Motivation

3 Issues

Modifications

Documentation

Matching PR in forked repository

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lhotari commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

poorbarcode commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Oct 30, 2025

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lhotari commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

poorbarcode commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

lhotari commented Oct 31, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

poorbarcode commented Oct 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading