Skip to content

Conversation

@smklein
Copy link
Collaborator

@smklein smklein commented Jan 7, 2026

Partial fix of #9594

@smklein smklein enabled auto-merge (squash) January 7, 2026 23:30
@smklein smklein merged commit 2279d23 into main Jan 8, 2026
16 checks passed
@smklein smklein deleted the inventory-read-order branch January 8, 2026 00:47
hawkw added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2026
hawkw added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 16, 2026
This commit fixes #9594 with regards to the sitrep load/delete
operations.[^1]

It makes the following changes:

1. Reorder the `fm_sitrep_read` query so that the sitrep metadata record
   is loaded _last_, and any loaded records are discarded should the
   metadata record no longer exist. This allows us to detect whether we
   have read a torn sitrep due to a concurrent delete
   (cda4f4d)
2. Change the `fm_sitrep_delete_all` query to use a transaction. The
   query is still a batched delete of multiple sitrep IDs, but this
   should be fine as the query does not `SELECT` the IDs to delete
   itself, and should therefore create a CRDB "write intent" only on
   the deleted rows. (1f0d6d9)
3. Some additional improvements to the `fm_sitrep_delete_all` query,
   adding a guard against deleting the current sitrep and changing the
   log level to INFO to match the similar blueprint/inventory delete
   queries.

   This isn't strictly necessary to fix #9594, but seemed worthwhile
   to do while I was here (0251720)
4. Add a knockoff version of @smklein's test for concurrent inventory
   deletes from PR #9604 that does the same thing except for sitreps
   (33547ed)
5. Change the `fm_sitrep_read_current` to correctly handle situations
   where it loads the current sitrep ID, and then, before it loads the
   sitrep records, a new sitrep is made current and the previous one is
   deleted (5f9b831)

[^1]: Which should be sufficient to close that issue, as #9603 and 
      #9604 already fixed the blueprint and inventory collection sides
      of the issue.
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.

3 participants