move forum bug report to bugs, and close

4 files changed, 55 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_1_f6b1991e259bf4b3d2c85a08f465aa4a._comment b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_1_f6b1991e259bf4b3d2c85a08f465aa4a._comment
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..79f0fe873
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_1_f6b1991e259bf4b3d2c85a08f465aa4a._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="anarcat"
+ subject="comment 1"
+ date="2015-06-24T00:31:43Z"
+ content="""
+did a single chunk get transfered correctly? i believe git-annex can only resume at the chunk granularity... that is what it is for, no? --[[anarcat]]
+"""]]
diff --git a/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_2_db57d14b983a957c454968477d9de634._comment b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_2_db57d14b983a957c454968477d9de634._comment
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..df12abc03
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_2_db57d14b983a957c454968477d9de634._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="digiuser"
+ subject="yes"
+ date="2015-06-24T00:49:22Z"
+ content="""
+Yes, a single chunk did get transferred correctly.
+
+Actually, many times I've run this experiment, many chunks did get transferred correctly. I've even verified that they are in S3, but git-annex is trying to re-upload them. 
+
+(I haven't checked their contents in S3 but the filenames are there and the sizes are there)
+"""]]
diff --git a/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_3_85989f505931ec695d7f3de74db0f5a1._comment b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_3_85989f505931ec695d7f3de74db0f5a1._comment
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..aac24a023
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_3_85989f505931ec695d7f3de74db0f5a1._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="digiuser"
+ subject="any updates?"
+ date="2015-06-29T03:05:53Z"
+ content="""
+Sorry to post again here but I was wondering if this message got lost. Anyone have a solution here? Thanks!
+"""]]
diff --git a/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_4_bd631d470ee0365a11483c9a2e563b32._comment b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_4_bd631d470ee0365a11483c9a2e563b32._comment
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ecac7917c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/s3_special_remote_does_not_resume_uploads_even_with_new_chunking/comment_4_bd631d470ee0365a11483c9a2e563b32._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 4"""
+ date="2015-07-16T17:57:44Z"
+ content="""
+This should have been filed as a bug report... I will move the thread to
+bugs after posting this comment.
+
+In your obfuscated log, it tries to HEAD GPGHMACSHA1--1111111111
+and when that fails, it PUTs GPGHMACSHA1--2222222222. From this, we can
+deduce that GPGHMACSHA1--1111111111 is not the first chunk, but is the full
+non-chunked file, and GPGHMACSHA1--2222222222 is actually the first chunk.
+
+For testing, I modifed the S3 remote to make file uploads succeed, but then
+report to git-annex that they failed. So, git annex copy uploads the 1st
+chunk and then fails, same as it was interrupted there. Repeating the copy,
+I see the same thing; it HEADs the full key, does not HEAD the first chunk,
+and so doesn't notice it was uploaded before, and so re-uploads the first
+chunk.
+
+The HEAD of the full key is just done for backwards compatability reasons.
+The problem is that it's not checking if the current chunk it's gonna
+upload is present in the remote. But, there is code in seekResume that
+is supposed to do that very check: `tryNonAsync (checker k)`
+
+Aha, the problem seems to be in the checkpresent action that's passed to
+that. Looks like it's passing in a dummy checkpresent action.
+
+I've fixed this in git, and now it resumes properly in my test case.
+"""]]