Skip to content

Take all restored object metadata from the archived object - #6319

Merged
bert-e merged 2 commits into
development/9.4from
bugfix/CLDSRV-1009-fix-legal-hold
Oct 5, 2026
Merged

bert-e merged 2 commits into
development/9.4from
bugfix/CLDSRV-1009-fix-legal-hold

Conversation

@francoisferrand

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Legal hold and website redirect from the restore request could still end
up on the restored object when the archived object had none, and the
replication info computed from the current bucket configuration could
replace the archived one. The restored version now carries only the
archived object's metadata, whichever restore path is used.

Issue: CLDSRV-1009

Legal hold and website redirect from the restore request could still end
up on the restored object when the archived object had none, and the
replication info computed from the current bucket configuration could
replace the archived one. The restored version now carries only the
archived object's metadata, whichever restore path is used.

Issue: CLDSRV-1009
@francoisferrand
francoisferrand requested review from a team, DarkIsDude and benzekrimaha October 1, 2026 19:51
@bert-e

bert-e commented Oct 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello francoisferrand,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval ⭐
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status ⭐
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA ⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix ⭐
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check ⭐
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval ⭐
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval ⭐
/bypass_source_branch_lineage Bypass the cross-branch contamination check ⭐
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Oct 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

@francoisferrand

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/approve

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.49%. Comparing base (9ab6299) to head (c98ae60).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on development/9.4.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
lib/api/apiUtils/object/versioning.js 97.17% <100.00%> (-0.24%) ⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.4    #6319      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            86.51%   86.49%   -0.03%     
===================================================
  Files                  212      212              
  Lines                14585    14569      -16     
===================================================
- Hits                 12618    12601      -17     
- Misses                1967     1968       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
checksums-disabled-tests 35.33% <0.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
file-ft-tests 69.97% <0.00%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
file-ft-tests-null-compat 70.47% <100.00%> (-0.09%) ⬇️
kmip-ft-tests 28.10% <0.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
mongo-v0-ft-tests 71.13% <100.00%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
mongo-v1-ft-tests 71.15% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
multiple-backend 36.11% <0.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v0 65.01% <0.00%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v0-null-compat 65.05% <0.00%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v1 64.98% <0.00%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
sur-tests 37.55% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
sur-tests-inflights 39.50% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unit 74.21% <100.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
utapi-v2-tests 35.31% <0.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@scality scality deleted a comment from bert-e Oct 5, 2026
@scality scality deleted a comment from bert-e Oct 5, 2026
@bert-e

bert-e commented Oct 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
into targetted development branches:

  • ✔️ development/9.4

  • ✔️ development/9.5

The following branches have NOT changed:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0
  • development/9.1
  • development/9.2
  • development/9.3

This pull request did not target the following hotfix branch(es) so they
were left untouched:

  • hotfix/7.4.8
  • hotfix/7.10.3
  • hotfix/7.4.10
  • hotfix/7.6.0
  • hotfix/7.10.49
  • hotfix/7.8.0
  • hotfix/7.70.11
  • hotfix/7.10.0
  • hotfix/7.10.28
  • hotfix/7.4.2
  • hotfix/7.10.27
  • hotfix/7.4.6
  • hotfix/7.70.51
  • hotfix/7.10.15
  • hotfix/7.2.0
  • hotfix/6.4.7
  • hotfix/7.10.8
  • hotfix/7.10.1
  • hotfix/7.70.73
  • hotfix/7.4.5
  • hotfix/7.70.45
  • hotfix/7.9.0
  • hotfix/9.2.36
  • hotfix/7.4.3
  • hotfix/7.70.21
  • hotfix/7.4.9
  • hotfix/7.10.4
  • hotfix/7.4.7
  • hotfix/7.4.4
  • hotfix/9.0.7
  • hotfix/9.3.13
  • hotfix/7.10.2
  • hotfix/7.4.0
  • hotfix/7.7.0
  • hotfix/8.8.45
  • hotfix/9.2.24
  • hotfix/9.0.32
  • hotfix/7.4.1
  • hotfix/7.10.30

Please check the status of the associated issue CLDSRV-1009.

Goodbye francoisferrand.

The following options are set: approve

@bert-e
bert-e merged commit c98ae60 into development/9.4 Oct 5, 2026
37 checks passed
@bert-e
bert-e deleted the bugfix/CLDSRV-1009-fix-legal-hold branch October 5, 2026 10:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants