Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: enhance deduplication rules provisioning with provider support and environment configuration #4399

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tuantran0910
Copy link
Contributor

@tuantran0910 tuantran0910 commented Apr 3, 2025

Closes #4401

📑 Description

To make the provider configurations to be updated, so I think we should:

  1. First, delete all existing provisioned providers.
  2. Then, provision new providers from either the environment variable or the directory. Combine provisioning providers and deduplication rules together.
  3. If any error occurs, rollback everything to the original state.

So each time the backend starts, restarts, ... The progress re-provisioning providers will happen. What if each time the backend restarts, the configurations not change, so I think we first calculate the hash of the configurations, then save it in either Redis or secret manager.

✅ Checks

  • My pull request adheres to the code style of this project
  • My code requires changes to the documentation
  • I have updated the documentation as required
  • All the tests have passed

Copy link

vercel bot commented Apr 3, 2025

@tuantran0910 is attempting to deploy a commit to the KeepHQ Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

@dosubot dosubot bot added the size:XXL This PR changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. label Apr 3, 2025
@tuantran0910 tuantran0910 marked this pull request as draft April 3, 2025 19:06
@dosubot dosubot bot added Feature A new feature Provider Providers related issues labels Apr 3, 2025
@tuantran0910 tuantran0910 marked this pull request as ready for review April 4, 2025 06:50
@tuantran0910
Copy link
Contributor Author

tuantran0910 commented Apr 5, 2025

Hmm, storing the hash value when provisioning in local file storage might not be a good way when we have many backend replicas as mentioned in this issue #4398. Solved by use other SecretManager type like k8s :D

@shahargl
Copy link
Member

shahargl commented Apr 7, 2025

hey @tuantran0910 - although we want to get this functionality, we feel it's a bit over-engineering here. let's sync if see if there is simpler solution for that.

@tuantran0910
Copy link
Contributor Author

hey @tuantran0910 - although we want to get this functionality, we feel it's a bit over-engineering here. let's sync if see if there is simpler solution for that.

Hi @shahargl, I completely agree with you. We always aim for the simplest solution to our problems. I don’t have much experience before, so I would really appreciate any advice you could share. Thanks! :D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Feature A new feature Provider Providers related issues size:XXL This PR changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[🐛 Bug]: Provisioned provider not updated with new configurations
3 participants