Feng Ruohang
4fcdf37ce6
Restore only the six replication-specific metadata fields after trust validation, so streaming uploads retain their actual content encoding and Snowball entries do not inherit ordinary metadata from the outer archive. Include helper, authenticated PUT/COPY/multipart and Snowball regressions, plus the R7 investigation, actual Opus 5 consensus and local verification. The production change is based on PR #187 by Mikhail Khadarenka. Co-authored-by: Mikhail Khadarenka <chodorenko@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Ruohang <rh@vonng.com>
2.1 KiB
Independently review the R7 repair plan. Do not edit files or run implementation. The user requires real Opus 5.0 discussion and explicit consensus before product code changes. Disagree when evidence warrants it; do not assume PR author claims are tests we ran.
Repository baseline: 9ebe81c1b3.
Plan v1: /Users/vonng/.codex/worktrees/ad51/silo/docs/investigations/r7/plan-v1.md
Plan SHA-256: 7af5705ebbfb0a375956d38dba059095dc16e24558290b1bd35a6ce85b9e1f96
Current upstream PR snapshot and proposed production patch: /Users/vonng/tmp/silo-r7-20260915-ad51/pr187.json and /Users/vonng/tmp/silo-r7-20260915-ad51/pr187.diff
Direct current-baseline helper reproduction: /Users/vonng/tmp/silo-r7-20260915-ad51/baseline_test.go, /Users/vonng/tmp/silo-r7-20260915-ad51/baseline.log (expected assertions fail).
Read the full plan and then independently inspect relevant current code including cmd/handler-utils.go, cmd/replication-trust.go, all five restoration call sites in cmd/object-handlers.go and cmd/object-multipart-handlers.go, existing test fixtures and SSE replication consumers. The Snowball no-PAX caller has NOT already performed generic ordinary metadata extraction; explicitly evaluate the proposed behavior there.
Check: minimal patch sufficiency; ordinary and trusted/replica trust boundary; PUT/COPY/multipart/parts/completion/Snowball call chains; six SSE-only mappings and empty multipart marker/checksum; normalization and removed unsafe ordinary user metadata; correct actual HTTP tests; stored-object remedial design risks. Do not expand this into independent R4/R5 issues unless this proposed fix depends on them.
Return a review in Chinese with (1) the reviewed version and exact hash, (2) verdict APPROVE / APPROVE_WITH_NONBLOCKING_NOTES / REQUEST_CHANGES, (3) each blocking issue with severity, exact code/plan evidence and smallest correction, (4) separately numbered nonblocking notes, (5) explicit whether you agree this SAME v1 plan can proceed to implementation after Codex records its dispositions. If no blocking issues, say so. Your review is source/plan validation, not actual tests run by you.