Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto #6044

benzekrimaha · 2026-01-14T17:31:35Z

bert-e · 2026-01-14T17:31:39Z

Hello benzekrimaha,

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	⭐
`/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 `TBA`
`/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 · 2026-01-14T17:31:47Z

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

the author
2 peers

Issue: CLDSRV-826

codecov · 2026-01-14T17:39:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.26%. Comparing base (247b008) to head (b5f9d21).
⚠️ Report is 30 commits behind head on development/9.3.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.3    #6044      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            84.29%   84.26%   -0.04%     
===================================================
  Files                  204      204              
  Lines                12962    12962              
===================================================
- Hits                 10926    10922       -4     
- Misses                2036     2040       +4

Flag	Coverage Δ
file-ft-tests	`67.39% <ø> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
kmip-ft-tests	`28.08% <ø> (ø)`
mongo-v0-ft-tests	`68.64% <ø> (-0.11%)`	⬇️
mongo-v1-ft-tests	`68.73% <ø> (ø)`
multiple-backend	`35.23% <ø> (ø)`
sur-tests	`35.56% <ø> (-0.81%)`	⬇️
sur-tests-inflights	`37.43% <ø> (ø)`
unit	`69.89% <ø> (ø)`
utapi-v2-tests	`34.23% <ø> (ø)`

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.

SylvainSenechal · 2026-01-15T10:26:09Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

+    return gcpClient.send(command)
+        .then(data => callback(null, data))
+        .catch(err => {
+            if (err && err.$metadata && err.$metadata.httpStatusCode &&


no need to check if err exists here. I think err.$metadata.httpstatus code will always be defined.
Probably same for statusCode, gotta call the api once to verify but I feel like we shouldn't have to check if its defined or not

SylvainSenechal · 2026-01-15T10:36:19Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/completeMpu.js

    before(done => {
        config = getRealAwsConfig(credentialOne);
        gcpClient = new GCP(config);
+        gcpClient.listObjects = (params, callback) => {


Just to understand : this was available in Arsenal GcpService but you just removed it and now you are redefining it in all these files, why not keeping it in Arsenal ? I think the GcpService already has several functions that are used for tests only 🤔
Or is it because you want to reassign the statusCode ?

Upon looking : consider updating the gcpClientRetry function : check err.$metadata.statuscode == 429 on top of the existing check err.statusCode == 429.
This way, can keep listObjects in Arsenal. (unless there are other reason I didn't see)

even if we added the $metadata.httpStatusCode check inside gcpClientRetry, we still need bespoke error munging in these raw-node tests. Rather than keeping a half-working helper in Arsenal plus a bunch of local overrides, I’d rather keep the shared GcpService minimal and let the tests own whatever extra plumbing they require.

SylvainSenechal

Don't forget to use real arsenal version in package json
Just one comment to address about the gcpClient.listObjects, maybe can consider a utility function at least, or even better keep it in Arsenal

some more comments to address

As these functions are only used in GCP tests, we decided to remove them from gcpService. This commit updates the tests accordingly using the new send command directly and enabling us to drop the wrapper functions. Issue: CLDSRV-826

francoisferrand

in addition to the comments overall, there is something weird in these test: we use GCP client from arsenal, yet at the same time there is a re-implementation of GCP without the sdk (c.f. makeGcpRequest, retryGcpRequest...)

this should probably be changed, to do things consistently: either with GCP client (to maximize code reuse), ~~or with a custom implementation,~~ or directly with the GCP sdk (if we want to ensure the test code is independent form the production code, and failure would thus only happen due to change in production code)

francoisferrand · 2026-01-20T07:13:39Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/bucket/get.js

+gcpClient.listObjects = (params, callback) => {
+    const command = new ListObjectsCommand(params);
+    return gcpClient.send(command)
+        .then(data => callback(null, data))
+        .catch(err => {
+            if ( err.statusCode === undefined) {
+                // eslint-disable-next-line no-param-reassign
+                err.statusCode = err.$metadata.httpStatusCode;
+            }
+            return callback(err);
+        });
+};
+
+gcpClient.getBucket = (params, callback) =>
+    gcpClient.headBucket(params, (err, res) => {
+        if (err) {
+            if (err.statusCode === undefined) {
+                // eslint-disable-next-line no-param-reassign
+                err.statusCode = err.$metadata.httpStatusCode;
+            }
+            if (err.$metadata && err.$metadata.httpStatusCode === 404) {
+                // eslint-disable-next-line no-param-reassign
+                err.name = 'NoSuchBucket';
+            }
+            return callback(err);
+        }
+        return callback(null, res);
+    });
+


why keep these "legacy" functions, and not migrate the actual tests to the new SDK api?
since this PR is focused, it does not seem like a large change...

francoisferrand · 2026-01-20T07:14:57Z

tests/functional/raw-node/test/GCP/object/completeMpu.js

        config = getRealAwsConfig(credentialOne);
        gcpClient = new GCP(config);
+        gcpClient.listObjects = (params, callback) => {
+            const command = new ListObjectsCommand(params);


same as above, should migrate each test? (and avoid duplicating this piece of code)

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from 1ac5fba to 5baf746 Compare January 14, 2026 17:32

bump latest up to date arsenal

a3a207a

Issue: CLDSRV-826

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from 5baf746 to ea9cb65 Compare January 14, 2026 17:34

benzekrimaha marked this pull request as ready for review January 14, 2026 17:34

benzekrimaha requested review from a team, SylvainSenechal, delthas, francoisferrand and maeldonn and removed request for delthas and maeldonn January 14, 2026 17:35

SylvainSenechal reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

SylvainSenechal previously approved these changes Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha changed the title ~~Improvement/cldsrv 826~~ Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto Jan 19, 2026

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-826 branch from b7e25d5 to bd529bb Compare January 19, 2026 16:38

francoisferrand reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

update arsenal tag

b5f9d21

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto #6044

Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto #6044

benzekrimaha commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

benzekrimaha Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal left a comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto #6044

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Cloudserver adaptation post arsenal refacto #6044

Conversation

benzekrimaha commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Jan 14, 2026

Hello benzekrimaha,

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Jan 14, 2026

Waiting for approval

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

benzekrimaha Jan 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Jan 20, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

SylvainSenechal Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

francoisferrand left a comment •

edited

Loading