Hitoshi Mitake
Hitoshi Mitake
@kafuu-chino On the second thought, I think this change is essentially not limited to auth token TTL. I wrote below integration test and checked that the test can fail in...
@kafuu-chino Could you rebase this PR based on the latest main? My PR introduced a conflict in the integration test file, sorry.
@kafuu-chino Thanks a lot for working on this! Is it possible for you to open PRs which backport this change to 3.4 and 3.5 branches?
@kafuu-chino please let me know if you don’t have time to backport the change to release-3.4 and 3.5. Probably I’ll be able to help.
@lavacat Yes I'm planning to work on, but if other people can work on this issue, it's fine for me. I checked grpc codes again, and yeah it doesn't seem...
@lavacat Thanks a lot! If you can work on it, it's really helpful.
I also feel `retry` might be fine, but adding `reasonCode` to the response and making `cancelReason` not a suggested thing to access will be good for letting clients not rely...
@ahrtr @lavacat Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The current concrete issue and possible action for clients is retrying on `InvalidAuthToken` and `AuthOldRevision`, and maintaining the codes will be costly. I...
hi @lavacat , do you have time for working on the proposal and https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/15253 ? It's great if we can finish before 3.6 because the change adds a new field...
@lavacat Thanks a lot for working on this! I think proposal 1 for 3.5 or earlier and proposal 3 for 3.6+ for keeping compatibility and simplifying the usage would be...