Skip to content

fix(mem-wal): reject mismatched shard specs before epoch claim - #7949

Open
u70b3 wants to merge 1 commit into
lance-format:mainfrom
u70b3:fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict
Open

fix(mem-wal): reject mismatched shard specs before epoch claim#7949
u70b3 wants to merge 1 commit into
lance-format:mainfrom
u70b3:fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict

Conversation

@u70b3

@u70b3 u70b3 commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • reject an incoming shard_spec_id that differs from the immutable identity already stored in a shard manifest, before advancing manifest version or writer epoch
  • revalidate sealed status and shard identity after write conflicts, preserving the distinguishable sealed-shard error
  • keep rejection side-effect free and include the shard id plus incoming and stored spec ids in the error
  • cover matching automatic identity, both current 0/1 mismatch directions, sealed manifests, and concurrent first claims

Scope

This is an independent defensive invariant over the identities Lance currently emits: 0 identifies manually managed shards and 1 is the sole automatic sharding spec. The check does not require monotonic spec allocation and does not define revisions or activation.

#8112 is complementary, not a prerequisite. It resolves a dataset writer's default 0 to the current automatic spec before a fresh manifest is created; this PR prevents any caller from changing an identity once the manifest exists. Either change is independently valid and reviewable.

shard_spec_id=0 is an identity, not a wildcard.

Fixes #7945.

Testing

  • cargo fmt --all -- --check
  • cargo test -p lance dataset::mem_wal::manifest::tests --lib -- --nocapture (14 passed)
  • cargo clippy --all --tests --benches -- -D warnings

Behavior change / rollout

Previously, a writer opening an existing shard with a mismatched shard_spec_id (e.g. the default 0 opening an auto-sharded shard stored as 1) was silently tolerated past claim_epoch. It now fails fast with InvalidInput naming the shard id and both spec ids — this is the fix intent of #7945. Mixed manual(0)/auto(1) deployments will see the new hard error; resolving the creation-side default-0 identity is tracked in #8112.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review Change Stack

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

claim_epoch now centralizes sealed-manifest and shard-spec mismatch validation, applies it before and after write conflicts, and adds single-threaded and concurrent tests for matching and mismatched shard specifications.

Changes

Shard claim validation

Layer / File(s) Summary
Centralized claim validation and conflict handling
rust/lance/src/dataset/mem_wal/manifest.rs
validate_claimable rejects sealed manifests and shard-spec mismatches. claim_epoch applies it before epoch calculation and after failed writes.
Claim behavior tests
rust/lance/src/dataset/mem_wal/manifest.rs
Tests verify matching claims, mismatched specifications, concurrent claim consistency, and sealed-manifest refusal.

Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers: hamersaw

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly summarizes the main change: rejecting mismatched shard specs before epoch claim.
Description check ✅ Passed The description matches the code changes and issue scope.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed The changes satisfy #7945 by rejecting spec mismatches, revalidating after conflicts, and preserving successful claims.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed No clear out-of-scope changes are indicated beyond the manifest validation fix and related tests.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the bug Something isn't working label Jul 23, 2026

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note

Quiet mode is enabled, so only the most important comments were posted inline. Other review comments are grouped below.

🟡 Other comments (1)
rust/lance/src/dataset/mem_wal/manifest.rs-445-447 (1)

445-447: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win

Document sealed-manifest refusal in # Errors.

claim_epoch now returns an error for sealed manifests, but this public API’s error contract only documents epoch conflicts, shard-spec conflicts, and contention. Document the sealed refusal and its no-claim effect. As per coding guidelines, “Ensure doc comments match actual semantics; distinguish mutates-in-place (&mut self) from returns-new-value behavior.”

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@rust/lance/src/dataset/mem_wal/manifest.rs` around lines 445 - 447, Update
the public `claim_epoch` documentation comment’s `# Errors` section to include
refusal for sealed manifests and state that this path makes no claim or
mutation. Keep the existing documentation for epoch conflicts, shard-spec
conflicts, and contention, and accurately describe the method’s in-place `&mut
self` behavior.

Source: Coding guidelines

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Other comments:
In `@rust/lance/src/dataset/mem_wal/manifest.rs`:
- Around line 445-447: Update the public `claim_epoch` documentation comment’s
`# Errors` section to include refusal for sealed manifests and state that this
path makes no claim or mutation. Keep the existing documentation for epoch
conflicts, shard-spec conflicts, and contention, and accurately describe the
method’s in-place `&mut self` behavior.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: QUIET

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: eddae87c-eea7-4d35-949b-1203ad196d84

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3a72f8a and 5cd2b6a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • rust/lance/src/dataset/mem_wal/manifest.rs

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.54545% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
rust/lance/src/dataset/mem_wal/manifest.rs 94.54% 1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@hamersaw hamersaw left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this change has the right intent, but will not fix underlying issues correctly. It's meant to disallow claiming a table with a different shard_spec_id than the base table. However, Lance currently only uses 0 and 1 as valid values to not manual and automatic sharding configuration. IMO this is part of a larger discussion, we should update the shard spec configuration so that IDs are monotonically increasing. That would make this change valid.

@u70b3

u70b3 commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks, I think I understand the concern. The manifest-side equality check is only meaningful if every distinct sharding-spec revision has a unique ID. Today the public initialization path assigns 1 to every automatic sharding configuration, so two different automatic specs remain indistinguishable (0 remains the manual-shard sentinel).

It sounds like the prerequisites are:

  1. Allocate sharding spec IDs monotonically and never reuse them.
  2. Ensure a writer claims with the active spec ID from the base-table metadata.
  3. Keep the claim-time validation so a stale or mismatched spec cannot advance the epoch and fence the incumbent writer.

Would you prefer that I expand this PR to implement the spec-ID lifecycle, or split the monotonic allocation/base-table validation into a prerequisite PR and rebase this change on it?

@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch 3 times, most recently from 6151ec2 to 8a49ce1 Compare July 30, 2026 14:19
@u70b3
u70b3 requested a review from hamersaw July 31, 2026 01:19
@u70b3

u70b3 commented Jul 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Following up on my previous comment: I split the prerequisite work into #8112.

#8112 introduces monotonic spec-ID allocation (max(existing) + 1), reserves spec ID 0 for manual sharding, validates reserved and duplicate IDs at MemWAL metadata boundaries, and resolves/validates the writer's spec against the active table spec before any shard claim. Manual sharding is restricted to spec ID 0.

The current initializer only creates the first spec, so an empty history produces spec ID 1. A future spec-revision API will provide the complete append-only history.

Once #8112 lands, I'll rebase #7949 on top of it. #7949 will remain focused on claim-time manifest validation.

@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch from 8a49ce1 to 812fe55 Compare July 31, 2026 08:06
u70b3 added a commit to u70b3/lance that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2026
The proto contract promises sharding spec ids are never reused, but the
public init path hardcoded id 1 for every automatic sharding
configuration, leaving distinct specs indistinguishable at shard-claim
time.

- add next_spec_id(): greatest id + 1, with 0 reserved as the
  manual-shard sentinel (MANUAL_SHARD_SPEC_ID)
- reject reserved/duplicate spec ids when decoding MemWalIndexDetails
- add MemWalIndexDetails::active_sharding_spec() (greatest id)
- mem_wal_writer resolves an unset (0) shard_spec_id to the active spec
  and rejects an explicit mismatch before any shard claim

Prerequisite for lance-format#7949.
@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch from 812fe55 to 0f7bd7f Compare July 31, 2026 09:34
u70b3 added a commit to u70b3/lance that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2026
The proto contract promises sharding spec ids are never reused, but the
public init path hardcoded id 1 for every automatic sharding
configuration, leaving distinct specs indistinguishable at shard-claim
time.

- add next_spec_id(): greatest id + 1, with 0 reserved as the
  manual-shard sentinel (MANUAL_SHARD_SPEC_ID)
- reject reserved/duplicate spec ids when decoding MemWalIndexDetails
- add MemWalIndexDetails::active_sharding_spec() (greatest id)
- mem_wal_writer resolves an unset (0) shard_spec_id to the active spec
  and rejects an explicit mismatch before any shard claim

Prerequisite for lance-format#7949.
u70b3 added a commit to u70b3/lance that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2026
The proto contract promises sharding spec ids are never reused, but the
public init path hardcoded id 1 for every automatic sharding
configuration, leaving distinct specs indistinguishable at shard-claim
time.

- add next_spec_id(): greatest id + 1, with 0 reserved as the
  manual-shard sentinel (MANUAL_SHARD_SPEC_ID)
- reject reserved/duplicate spec ids when decoding MemWalIndexDetails
- add MemWalIndexDetails::active_sharding_spec() (greatest id)
- mem_wal_writer resolves an unset (0) shard_spec_id to the active spec
  and rejects an explicit mismatch before any shard claim

Prerequisite for lance-format#7949.
@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch from 0f7bd7f to dc95ea2 Compare July 31, 2026 11:20
u70b3 added a commit to u70b3/lance that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2026
The proto contract promises sharding spec ids are never reused, but the
public init path hardcoded id 1 for every automatic sharding
configuration, leaving distinct specs indistinguishable at shard-claim
time.

- add next_spec_id(): greatest id + 1, with 0 reserved as the
  manual-shard sentinel (MANUAL_SHARD_SPEC_ID)
- reject reserved/duplicate spec ids when decoding MemWalIndexDetails
- add MemWalIndexDetails::active_sharding_spec() (greatest id)
- mem_wal_writer resolves an unset (0) shard_spec_id to the active spec
  and rejects an explicit mismatch before any shard claim

Prerequisite for lance-format#7949.
u70b3 added a commit to u70b3/lance that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2026
The proto contract promises sharding spec ids are never reused, but the
public init path hardcoded id 1 for every automatic sharding
configuration, leaving distinct specs indistinguishable at shard-claim
time.

- add next_spec_id(): greatest id + 1, with 0 reserved as the
  manual-shard sentinel (MANUAL_SHARD_SPEC_ID)
- reject reserved/duplicate spec ids when decoding MemWalIndexDetails
- add MemWalIndexDetails::active_sharding_spec() (greatest id)
- mem_wal_writer resolves an unset (0) shard_spec_id to the active spec
  and rejects an explicit mismatch before any shard claim

Prerequisite for lance-format#7949.
u70b3 added a commit to u70b3/lance that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2026
The proto contract promises sharding spec ids are never reused, but the
public init path hardcoded id 1 for every automatic sharding
configuration, leaving distinct specs indistinguishable at shard-claim
time.

- add next_spec_id(): greatest id + 1, with 0 reserved as the
  manual-shard sentinel (MANUAL_SHARD_SPEC_ID)
- reject reserved/duplicate spec ids when decoding MemWalIndexDetails
- add MemWalIndexDetails::active_sharding_spec() (greatest id)
- mem_wal_writer resolves an unset (0) shard_spec_id to the active spec
  and rejects an explicit mismatch before any shard claim

Prerequisite for lance-format#7949.
@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch from dc95ea2 to f2ab822 Compare August 3, 2026 10:05
@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch from f2ab822 to 3eaa2e5 Compare August 3, 2026 10:20
@u70b3

u70b3 commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Scope and dependency reset completed and force-pushed on latest main.

I narrowed the claim to the identities current Lance code actually emits: manual 0 and sole automatic 1. The manifest guard is independently useful under that invariant: a manual caller cannot claim/fence an automatic shard, an automatic caller cannot claim/fence a manual shard, and a concurrent first claim cannot be followed by the opposite identity. Rejection remains side-effect free and is revalidated after write conflicts.

This PR no longer claims that monotonic spec allocation is a prerequisite or attempts to solve future sharding revisions/activation. #8112 was separately reduced to resolving the writer's default 0 before a fresh automatic manifest is created. Either PR is independently valid; together they cover creation-time resolution and stored-manifest immutability.

The issue reproducer and tests now use only 0/1; the public error docs also include sealed/no-mutation behavior. Fourteen manifest tests and full workspace clippy pass after the latest-main rebase.

The existing CHANGES_REQUESTED review predates this scope decision. Please re-review the independent defensive invariant.

@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch 3 times, most recently from fc60c80 to 27fa780 Compare August 6, 2026 12:50
@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch from 27fa780 to 87ea068 Compare August 11, 2026 06:14
@u70b3

u70b3 commented Aug 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@hamersaw PTAL when you have a chance — the open CHANGES_REQUESTED predates the Aug 3 scope reset; the branch is current with main and all checks pass.

@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch 2 times, most recently from 796c43f to 8e5795f Compare August 26, 2026 09:39
@u70b3

u70b3 commented Aug 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Rebased onto latest main and resolved the conflict with #8640 (the read_latest split): the claim path now re-validates via refresh_latest() per its uncached-read invariant, and the two observing tests use latest(). All manifest tests and clippy pass locally.

@hamersaw your CHANGES_REQUESTED (2026-07-27) was against the pre-2026-08-03 version. Scope has since been narrowed to an independent defensive invariant over the 0/1 identities Lance actually emits today — it no longer depends on monotonic spec-id allocation, which lives in #8112 for independent review. Could you take another look?

lance-gatekeeper[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

@lance-gatekeeper lance-gatekeeper Bot added the K-approved Latest Gatekeeper recommendation permits acceptance. label Aug 26, 2026
@u70b3

u70b3 commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@Xuanwo could you help review this when you have a moment? The CHANGES_REQUESTED (2026-07-27) predates the 2026-08-03 scope reset — the PR is now an independent defensive invariant over the 0/1 shard identities Lance actually emits, no longer gated on monotonic spec-id allocation (that lives in #8112). It's rebased onto current main with the #8640 conflict resolved (the claim path re-validates via refresh_latest per its uncached-read invariant), and CI is fully green. I've re-requested review from hamersaw twice over the past weeks without a response, so a fresh pair of eyes would be much appreciated.

@u70b3
u70b3 force-pushed the fix/memwal-shard-spec-conflict branch from 8e5795f to bcdf203 Compare September 7, 2026 02:11
@lance-gatekeeper lance-gatekeeper Bot removed the K-approved Latest Gatekeeper recommendation permits acceptance. label Sep 7, 2026

@lance-gatekeeper lance-gatekeeper Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Gate recommendation: approve.

shard_spec_id is already an immutable manifest identity, and this change enforces it at the authoritative claim boundary before any epoch mutation and after write conflicts. It preserves sealed-shard error precedence and existing contention behavior. #8112 remains the complementary creation-side identity resolution rather than a prerequisite for this guard.

@lance-gatekeeper lance-gatekeeper Bot added the K-approved Latest Gatekeeper recommendation permits acceptance. label Sep 7, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working K-approved Latest Gatekeeper recommendation permits acceptance.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

bug: reject mismatched shard spec before epoch claim

2 participants