Skip to content

feat(pytexera): create missing binary buckets - #8262

Open
carloea2 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
carloea2:fix/create-binary-bucket-on-head-404
Open

feat(pytexera): create missing binary buckets#8262
carloea2 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
carloea2:fix/create-binary-bucket-on-head-404

Conversation

@carloea2

@carloea2 carloea2 commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Treat the S3 missing-bucket ClientError codes from HeadBucket as a signal to create the large binary bucket. Preserve all other client errors.

The regression covers both a 404 missing bucket and a 403 error that must propagate.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8261

How was this PR tested?

A botocore S3 stub reproduced the untouched failure with ClientError: 404. After the fix, it consumed both HeadBucket and CreateBucket and reported bucket_created=True.

C:\Users\carlo\texera\texera\.venv312\Scripts\python.exe -c "import sys,pytest; sys.path[:0]=[r'C:\Users\carlo\texera\texera-worktrees\investigate-bug67\amber\src\main\python',r'C:\Users\carlo\texera\texera\amber\src\main\python']; raise SystemExit(pytest.main([r'amber/src/test/python/pytexera/storage/test_large_binary_manager.py','-q','-p','no:cacheprovider']))"

C:\Users\carlo\texera\texera\.venv312\Scripts\ruff.exe check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python

C:\Users\carlo\texera\texera\.venv312\Scripts\ruff.exe format --check amber/src/main/python/pytexera/storage/large_binary_manager.py amber/src/test/python/pytexera/storage/test_large_binary_manager.py

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Codex

@Yicong-Huang Yicong-Huang added the release/v1.2 back porting to release/v1.2 label Aug 31, 2026
@github-actions
github-actions Bot requested a review from xuang7 August 31, 2026 05:51
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport auto-label report

This fix: PR was checked against each actively-supported release branch. release/* labels drive the post-merge backport, so add or remove one to change where this fix lands.

Release branch Analysis
⚠️ release/v1.3 Not labeled automatically — none of the files this PR modifies exist on this branch (amber/src/main/python/pytexera/storage/large_binary_manager.py, amber/src/test/python/pytexera/storage/test_large_binary_manager.py). The fix may target code that isn't on this release, or the files were moved/renamed after the branch was cut. Please check and add release/v1.3 by hand if this fix should be backported here.
release/v1.2 Already labeled — this fix is queued to backport here.

Auto-label run.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

  • Contributors with relevant context: @Yicong-Huang
    You can notify them by mentioning @Yicong-Huang in a comment.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 7 worse · ⚪ 8 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 50321e4 benchmarked on this same runner, so the delta is largely free of cross-runner hardware noise. The "7d avg" column still reflects the gh-pages dashboard. Treat <±5% as noise unless repeated.

Dashboard · Run

config throughput MB/s latency max Δ latest / 7d
🔴 bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 342 0.209 29,708/38,859/38,859 us 🔴 +16.2% / 🔴 +149.4%
🔴 bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 769 0.47 124,491/177,038/177,038 us 🔴 +25.8% / 🔴 +65.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 907 0.553 1,098,566/1,212,022/1,212,022 us ⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +18.5%
Baseline details

Latest main 50321e4 from same runner

config metric PR latest main 7d avg Δ latest Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 342 tuples/sec 385 tuples/sec 787.98 tuples/sec -11.2% -56.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.209 MB/s 0.235 MB/s 0.481 MB/s -11.1% -56.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p50 29,708 us 25,559 us 12,593 us +16.2% +135.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p95 38,859 us 39,564 us 15,579 us -1.8% +149.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p99 38,859 us 39,564 us 18,786 us -1.8% +106.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 769 tuples/sec 821 tuples/sec 1,008 tuples/sec -6.3% -23.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.47 MB/s 0.501 MB/s 0.615 MB/s -6.2% -23.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p50 124,491 us 121,452 us 100,701 us +2.5% +23.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p95 177,038 us 140,744 us 107,244 us +25.8% +65.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p99 177,038 us 140,744 us 116,122 us +25.8% +52.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 907 tuples/sec 921 tuples/sec 1,042 tuples/sec -1.5% -13.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.553 MB/s 0.562 MB/s 0.636 MB/s -1.6% -13.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p50 1,098,566 us 1,076,346 us 981,959 us +2.1% +11.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p95 1,212,022 us 1,208,774 us 1,023,080 us +0.3% +18.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p99 1,212,022 us 1,208,774 us 1,051,697 us +0.3% +15.2%
Raw CSV
config_idx,batch_size,schema_width,string_len,num_batches,total_ms,total_tuples,total_bytes,tuples_per_sec,mb_per_sec,lat_p50_us,lat_p95_us,lat_p99_us
0,10,10,64,20,584.24,200,128000,342,0.209,29708.40,38859.14,38859.14
1,100,10,64,20,2599.84,2000,1280000,769,0.470,124491.34,177037.76,177037.76
2,1000,10,64,20,22061.42,20000,12800000,907,0.553,1098565.65,1212022.15,1212022.15

@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Aug 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.90%. Comparing base (50321e4) to head (fac116e).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8262      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     93.93%   93.90%   -0.04%     
+ Complexity     4762     4761       -1     
============================================
  Files          1191     1191              
  Lines         48308    49054     +746     
  Branches       5377     5377              
============================================
+ Hits          45380    46062     +682     
- Misses         1494     1557      +63     
- Partials       1434     1435       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ *Carryforward flag
access-control-service 81.00% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4
agent-service 99.32% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4
amber 90.02% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️ Carriedforward from 50321e4
computing-unit-managing-service 73.67% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4
config-service 86.86% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4
file-service 87.91% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4
frontend 96.41% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4
notebook-migration-service 79.31% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4
pyamber 97.87% <100.00%> (-1.00%) ⬇️
workflow-compiling-service 77.19% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 50321e4

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

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

@carloea2 carloea2 changed the title fix(pytexera): create missing binary buckets feat(pytexera): create missing binary buckets Aug 31, 2026
@mengw15 mengw15 removed the release/v1.2 back porting to release/v1.2 label Aug 31, 2026
@xuang7 xuang7 removed the fix label Sep 1, 2026
@xuang7
xuang7 removed their request for review September 1, 2026 01:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Missing large binary buckets are not created after a head request

5 participants