-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 203
Fix proxy download test #11911
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
Open
michel-laterman
wants to merge
3
commits into
elastic:main
Choose a base branch
from
michel-laterman:test/fix-proxy-download-status
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Fix proxy download test #11911
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The agent control server uses a non-standard format when serializing timestamps breaking the
ExecStatuscommand. I've added this method in order to avoid this.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is weird, how is something formatted with
time.Formatnot a valid time.Time?Do you have an example of the error this causes?
I don't like just duplicating the function like this, it would be better to fix things in place, but I can't suggest alternatives unless I know what specific error we are working around.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agent status returned an error: could not unmarshal agent status output: parsing time "2025-12-18 19:02:32 +0000 UTC" as "2006-01-02T15:04:05Z07:00": cannot parse " 19:02:32 +0000 UTC" as "T".By default Go will try to to parse strings using the RFC3339 nano format (docs), the control server does not use this when serializing times to send to the client
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a drawback to changing to RFC3339? It seems like this would always unconditionally fail without a custom unmarshal implementation. Is this just the first time anyone has ever tried to unmarshal this as JSON in Go?
This is clearly just an artifact of the control server, the upgrade watcher is using gRPC instead so doesn't hit this I suspect because it never unmarshals as JSON.
Why do we have this non-standard format?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can't think of a drawback from a technical standpoint; i've made a draft to change it here:#11923.
I don't know why the non-standard format was chosen, perhaps @blakerouse or @michalpristas would know?