Optimize oplog size by stripping locations of large objects

[delthas]

Issue: BB-491

[bert-e]

Hello delthas,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

• the author

• 2 peers

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.55556% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 74.38%. Comparing base (20b5374) to head (f1018c1).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
extensions/replication/tasks/ReplicateObject.js	87.50%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
extensions/oplogPopulator/OplogPopulator.js	89.14% <100.00%> (ø)
...ns/oplogPopulator/OplogPopulatorConfigValidator.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
extensions/oplogPopulator/modules/Connector.js	86.40% <100.00%> (+1.30%)	⬆️
...nsions/oplogPopulator/modules/ConnectorsManager.js	94.07% <100.00%> (ø)
...pulator/pipeline/MultipleBucketsPipelineFactory.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ensions/oplogPopulator/pipeline/PipelineFactory.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...oplogPopulator/pipeline/WildcardPipelineFactory.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
extensions/replication/tasks/ReplicateObject.js	91.20% <87.50%> (-0.14%)	⬇️

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

Components	Coverage Δ
Bucket Notification	80.22% <ø> (ø)
Core Library	80.53% <ø> (-0.49%)	⬇️
Ingestion	71.14% <ø> (+0.52%)	⬆️
Lifecycle	78.62% <ø> (ø)
Oplog Populator	85.59% <100.00%> (+0.52%)	⬆️
Replication	59.61% <87.50%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
Bucket Scanner	85.76% <ø> (ø)

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.2    #2711      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            74.49%   74.38%   -0.12%     
===================================================
  Files                  200      200              
  Lines                13562    13589      +27     
===================================================
+ Hits                 10103    10108       +5     
- Misses                3449     3471      +22     
  Partials                10       10              

Flag	Coverage Δ
api:retry	9.09% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
api:routes	8.91% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
bucket-scanner	85.76% <ø> (ø)
ft_test:queuepopulator	9.01% <0.00%> (-1.30%)	⬇️
ingestion	12.50% <0.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
lib	7.58% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
lifecycle	18.81% <0.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
notification	1.03% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
replication	18.45% <31.11%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
unit	50.95% <64.44%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[delthas]

Wondering if there might be an issue where we would refresh items that just had an empty location array (that was not stripped, but was just empty to start with). Investigating.

[delthas]

Wondering if there might be an issue where we would refresh items that just had an empty location array (that was not stripped, but was just empty to start with). Investigating.

I added a check on content length > 0 (if content length is 0, no need to fetch the location, there were not stripped, but rather empty in the first place).

[francoisferrand]

Should we merge this in a 9.3 branch? Or are we confident enough that we are happy to deliver this in a patch release (maybe even 9.2) ?

[delthas]

Should we merge this in a 9.3 branch? Or are we confident enough that we are happy to deliver this in a patch release (maybe even 9.2) ?

Let's merge in: 9.3.

[bert-e]

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue BB-491 contains:

• 9.2.1

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

• 9.2.1

• 9.3.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of BB-491, or the target
branch of this pull request.

[delthas]

Moved to #2715