[Bug] - REST UploadPartCopy - Without Part Number, Bucket Missing Reported Rather Than 405

by ADMIN 91 views

Bug Report: REST UploadPartCopy without Part Number, Bucket Missing Reported Rather Than 405

Bug Description

In this bug report, we will discuss an issue with the REST UploadPartCopy functionality in the Versitygw system. The problem arises when attempting to upload a part without providing a part number, resulting in a bucket missing error (404) instead of the expected 405 method not allowed error. This issue is similar to #1226, but with a crucial difference - the part number is omitted.

The Checks Appear to be Out of Order

Upon investigation, it appears that the checks in the Versitygw system are out of order. Direct S3 determines the command type based on the parameter(s), checks if there's a command matching the provided method, and then routes it to the endpoint (bucket and key). Conversely, Versitygw attempts to route to the endpoint first and then checks the method and parameters. This discrepancy in the order of checks leads to the incorrect handling of the UploadPartCopy request.

To Reproduce the Issue

To reproduce this issue, follow the same steps as #1226, but omit the part number. This will trigger the bug, resulting in a bucket missing error (404) instead of the expected 405 method not allowed error.

Expected Behavior

The expected behavior in this scenario is for the system to return a 405 method not allowed error, indicating that the UploadPartCopy request is invalid due to the missing part number. However, the current implementation returns a 404 bucket not found error, which is incorrect.

Server Version

The server version affected by this bug is:

  • Version: v1.0.12
  • Build: f630392
  • Build Time: 2025-04-15_06:41:18PM
  • Operating System: Darwin Lukes-MacBook-Pro.local 23.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 23.4.0: Fri Mar 15 00:12:25 PDT 2024; root:xnu-10063.101.17~1/RELEASE_ARM64_T6030 arm64

Conclusion

In conclusion, the bug in the REST UploadPartCopy functionality without a part number results in a bucket missing error (404) instead of the expected 405 method not allowed error. This issue is caused by the out-of-order checks in the Versitygw system. To resolve this bug, the checks should be reordered to match the Direct S3 implementation, ensuring that the correct error is returned in this scenario.

Solution

To fix this bug, the Versitygw system should be modified to follow the same order of checks as Direct S3. This involves determining the command type based on the parameter(s), checking if there's a command matching the provided method, and then routing it to the endpoint (bucket and key). By making this change, the system will correctly return a 405 method not allowed error when attempting to upload a part without providing a part number.

Implementation

The implementation of the solution involves modifying the Versitygw system to reorder the checks. This can be achieved by:

  1. Determining the command type based on the parameter(s)
  2. Checking if there's a command matching the provided method
  3. Routing it to the endpoint (bucket and key)

By following these steps, the Versitygw system will correctly handle the UploadPartCopy request return the expected 405 method not allowed error when the part number is missing.

Testing

To ensure that the bug is fixed, thorough testing should be performed. This includes testing the UploadPartCopy functionality with and without a part number, as well as verifying that the correct error is returned in each scenario.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the bug in the REST UploadPartCopy functionality without a part number has been identified and a solution has been proposed. By reordering the checks in the Versitygw system, the correct error will be returned in this scenario, ensuring that the system behaves as expected.
Q&A: Bug Report - REST UploadPartCopy without Part Number, Bucket Missing Reported Rather Than 405

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the issue with the REST UploadPartCopy functionality?

A: The issue arises when attempting to upload a part without providing a part number, resulting in a bucket missing error (404) instead of the expected 405 method not allowed error.

Q: What is the expected behavior in this scenario?

A: The expected behavior is for the system to return a 405 method not allowed error, indicating that the UploadPartCopy request is invalid due to the missing part number.

Q: What is the current implementation doing?

A: The current implementation is returning a 404 bucket not found error, which is incorrect.

Q: What is the cause of this issue?

A: The cause of this issue is the out-of-order checks in the Versitygw system. The checks should be reordered to match the Direct S3 implementation.

Q: How can this issue be fixed?

A: This issue can be fixed by modifying the Versitygw system to reorder the checks. This involves determining the command type based on the parameter(s), checking if there's a command matching the provided method, and then routing it to the endpoint (bucket and key).

Q: What are the steps to implement the solution?

A: The steps to implement the solution are:

  1. Determine the command type based on the parameter(s)
  2. Check if there's a command matching the provided method
  3. Route it to the endpoint (bucket and key)

Q: How can we ensure that the bug is fixed?

A: To ensure that the bug is fixed, thorough testing should be performed. This includes testing the UploadPartCopy functionality with and without a part number, as well as verifying that the correct error is returned in each scenario.

Q: What is the server version affected by this bug?

A: The server version affected by this bug is:

  • Version: v1.0.12
  • Build: f630392
  • Build Time: 2025-04-15_06:41:18PM
  • Operating System: Darwin Lukes-MacBook-Pro.local 23.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 23.4.0: Fri Mar 15 00:12:25 PDT 2024; root:xnu-10063.101.17~1/RELEASE_ARM64_T6030 arm64

Additional Questions

Q: What is the impact of this bug on the system?

A: The impact of this bug is that it causes the system to return an incorrect error message when attempting to upload a part without providing a part number.

Q: How can this bug be prevented in the future?

A: This bug can be prevented in the future by following the same order of checks as Direct S3, ensuring that the correct error is returned in this scenario.

Q: What are the benefits of fixing this bug?

A: The benefits of fixing this bug are that it will ensure that the system behaves as expected, and that the correct error is returned in this scenario.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Q&A article provides a comprehensive overview of the bug report - REST UploadPartCopy without part number, bucket missing reported rather than 405. It answers frequently asked questions, provides additional, and concludes with the benefits of fixing this bug.