Honor transitionOneDayEarlier in v1 lifecycle transitions by maeldonn · Pull Request #2844 · scality/backbeat

maeldonn · 2026-09-09T09:00:09Z

The v1 eligibility pre-filter and the noncurrent version transition apply compared raw rule days, ignoring transitionOneDayEarlier, so eligible objects were silently skipped while the current version apply stage honors the flag. Compute eligibility with LifecycleDateTime, as the apply stage does.

Issue: BB-867

bert-e · 2026-09-09T09:00:13Z

Hello maeldonn,

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 · 2026-09-09T09:00:19Z

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue BB-867 contains:

None

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

9.5.3
9.6.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of BB-867, or the target
branch of this pull request.

bert-e · 2026-09-09T12:50:14Z

Foreign commits detected in source branch

The source branch bugfix/BB-867/one-day-earlier shares history with the following
release line(s), which are not ancestors of development/9.4:

development/9.5
development/9.6

This typically happens when the feature branch was accidentally based on
commits from a higher release line rather than directly on development/9.4.
Common causes include:

Rebasing on a Bert-E integration branch (e.g. a w/ branch) instead of
directly on development/9.4
Branching from a higher development branch instead of development/9.4
Merging a higher development branch into the feature branch

How to fix

Create a new branch directly from development/9.4 and cherry-pick your
changes onto it:

git checkout -b <new-branch-name> origin/development/9.4
git cherry-pick <your-commits>

Then open a new pull request from that branch.

If this is a false positive

If your branch is a legitimate backport and was previously merged into one
of the branches above before being extended with new commits, an
administrator can bypass this check with:

@bert-e bypass_source_branch_lineage

bert-e · 2026-09-09T12:50:43Z

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue BB-867 contains:

9.5.3
9.6.0

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

9.4.4
9.5.3
9.6.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of BB-867, or the target
branch of this pull request.

codecov · 2026-09-09T12:52:50Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 74.62%. Comparing base (1f35ed7) to head (3a9910c).

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js	`91.85% <100.00%> (+0.29%)`	⬆️

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

Components	Coverage Δ
Bucket Notification	`80.27% <ø> (ø)`
Core Library	`80.82% <ø> (-0.66%)`	⬇️
Ingestion	`70.72% <ø> (+0.08%)`	⬆️
Lifecycle	`79.10% <100.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
Oplog Populator	`85.83% <ø> (ø)`
Replication	`59.65% <ø> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
Bucket Scanner	`85.76% <ø> (ø)`

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.4    #2844      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            74.88%   74.62%   -0.27%     
===================================================
  Files                  201      201              
  Lines                13761    13757       -4     
===================================================
- Hits                 10305    10266      -39     
- Misses                3446     3481      +35     
  Partials                10       10

Flag	Coverage Δ
api:retry	`9.09% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
api:routes	`8.91% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
bucket-scanner	`85.76% <ø> (ø)`
ft_test:queuepopulator	`9.13% <0.00%> (-1.84%)`	⬇️
ingestion	`12.57% <0.00%> (+0.01%)`	⬆️
lib	`8.87% <0.00%> (+0.01%)`	⬆️
lifecycle	`19.03% <72.72%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
notification	`1.03% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
oplogPopulator	`0.14% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
replication	`18.61% <0.00%> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
unit	`51.70% <100.00%> (+0.08%)`	⬆️

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

francoisferrand

I wonder if we should really fix this:

transitionOneDayEarlier is not really needed, since we can configure the system to transition after 0 day (expireOneDayEarlier is more useful, since the minimum delay for expiration is 1 day)
both flags are kind of deprecated, timeProgressionFactor should be used instead
while sound in principle (e.g. use getTransitionTimestamp consistently to filter), I fear it may be complicated to insert cleanly in the code, without breaking abstractions levels...

SylvainSenechal · 2026-09-14T11:59:58Z

I wonder if we should really fix this:

transitionOneDayEarlier is not really needed, since we can configure the system to transition after 0 day (expireOneDayEarlier is more useful, since the minimum delay for expiration is 1 day)

both flags are kind of deprecated, timeProgressionFactor should be used instead

while sound in principle (e.g. use getTransitionTimestamp consistently to filter), I fear it may be complicated to insert cleanly in the code, without breaking abstractions levels...

I just saw this comment : I wonder, are these only used for our own testing, or do we have clients using them ?
I know timeProgressionFactor is used in the zenko cucumber tests.

If we can confirm that these 2 expire/transitionOneDayEarlier are only used for easier testing and not by clients, then yeah imo we should leave or deprecate them more actively

SylvainSenechal · 2026-09-14T12:03:05Z

transitionOneDayEarlier

in zenko operator, they are called "xxxforTesting" :

transitionsOneDayEarlier := cr.Spec.Backbeat.LifecycleBucketProcessor.TriggerTransitionsOneDayEarlierForTesting
expirationsOneDayEarlier := cr.Spec.Backbeat.TriggerExpirationsOneDayEarlierForTesting
timeProgressionFactor := cr.Annotations[timeProgressionFactorAnnotation]

Probably worth to take a look and see if we can just remove that code and just keep time progression factor 🤔

SylvainSenechal

discussion, see comments

maeldonn · 2026-09-29T14:23:25Z

I reproduced both bugs on my artesca lab, and the fix ended up small, so I kept it. I'll check whether we can remove the deprecated flags and open a follow-up ticket if so.

Edit: removing both env vars looks doable, so I dropped the transitionOneDayEarlier fix from this PR. It now only stops expireOneDayEarlier from shifting transitions.

bert-e · 2026-09-29T15:00:43Z

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

looks simpler indeed, but at the cost of duplication (2 "lifecycleDateTime") and CPU (computing the transition/expiration/current date multiple times, for each rule)... So still not sure it is worth the effort...

The v1 eligibility pre-filter and the noncurrent version transition apply compared raw rule days, ignoring transitionOneDayEarlier, while arsenal's getApplicableRules honors it. Eligible objects were skipped by the v1 pre-filter, and noncurrent versions were not transitioned early, also on the v2 task which reuses the same apply check. Compute transition times with LifecycleDateTime, as getApplicableRules does. Issue: BB-867

Transition times were compared with getCurrentDate(), which is shifted by expireOneDayEarlier, so that flag moved transitions one day earlier too: noncurrent version transitions on both v1 and v2 tasks, and the v1 eligibility pre-filter. With both flags set, the shifts stacked. Compare transition times with the real clock, as arsenal's getApplicableRules does. Issue: BB-867

maeldonn requested review from a team, SylvainSenechal and francoisferrand September 9, 2026 09:00

claude Bot reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js Outdated

claude Bot reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tests/unit/lifecycle/LifecycleTask.spec.js Outdated

maeldonn changed the base branch from development/9.5 to development/9.4 September 9, 2026 12:50

maeldonn force-pushed the bugfix/BB-867/one-day-earlier branch from fe41097 to d65472e Compare September 9, 2026 12:50

francoisferrand reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js Outdated

SylvainSenechal requested changes Sep 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

maeldonn force-pushed the bugfix/BB-867/one-day-earlier branch from d65472e to ad0c265 Compare September 29, 2026 14:43

maeldonn requested review from SylvainSenechal and francoisferrand September 29, 2026 14:59

maeldonn force-pushed the bugfix/BB-867/one-day-earlier branch from ad0c265 to 155c9fd Compare September 29, 2026 15:13

claude Bot reviewed Sep 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js Outdated

francoisferrand reviewed Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js Outdated

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js Outdated

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js

SylvainSenechal reviewed Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js Outdated

Comment thread extensions/lifecycle/tasks/LifecycleTask.js Outdated

maeldonn added 2 commits September 30, 2026 18:40

maeldonn force-pushed the bugfix/BB-867/one-day-earlier branch from 155c9fd to 3a9910c Compare September 30, 2026 16:40

maeldonn requested review from SylvainSenechal and francoisferrand September 30, 2026 16:48

SylvainSenechal approved these changes Sep 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

maeldonn commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Sep 9, 2026

Hello maeldonn,

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Sep 9, 2026

Incorrect fix version

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Sep 9, 2026

Foreign commits detected in source branch

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Sep 9, 2026

Incorrect fix version

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

francoisferrand left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal commented Sep 14, 2026

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maeldonn commented Sep 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Sep 29, 2026

Request integration branches

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

francoisferrand left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

codecov Bot commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

SylvainSenechal commented Sep 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

maeldonn commented Sep 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading