[Improvement-18286][ApiServer] Remove the default workerGroup from the frontend and add backend validation for workerGroup by njnu-seafish · Pull Request #18293 · apache/dolphinscheduler

njnu-seafish · 2026-05-25T12:35:47Z

Was this PR generated or assisted by AI?

Yes, Modify the frontend code using AI, then test and verify locally.

Purpose of the pull request

close #18286

Brief change log

Remove the default workerGroup from the frontend and add backend validation for workerGroup

Verify this pull request

This pull request is code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This pull request is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(or)

Pull Request Notice

If your pull request contains incompatible change, you should also add it to docs/docs/en/guide/upgrade/incompatible.md

…dation for workerGroup

ruanwenjun · 2026-05-26T06:14:49Z

+     * @param workerGroups worker group names to validate
+     * @throws ServiceException if any worker group is not assigned
+     */
+    void validateWorkerGroupsAssignedToProject(Long projectCode, List<String> workerGroups);


duplicated with WorkerGroupValidator

duplicated with WorkerGroupValidator

Okay, I will unify the logic.

ruanwenjun · 2026-05-26T06:16:50Z

+    private void validateTaskWorkerGroups(long projectCode, List<TaskDefinitionLog> taskDefinitionLogs) {
+        if (CollectionUtils.isEmpty(taskDefinitionLogs)) {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        List<String> workerGroups = taskDefinitionLogs.stream()
+                .map(TaskDefinitionLog::getWorkerGroup)
+                .filter(StringUtils::isNotEmpty)
+                .distinct()
+                .collect(Collectors.toList());
+
+        projectWorkerGroupRelationService.validateWorkerGroupsAssignedToProject(projectCode, workerGroups);
+    }


This kind of code should put into WorkerGroupValidator

This kind of code should put into WorkerGroupValidator

Okay, I will unify the logic.

SbloodyS · 2026-05-26T07:46:14Z

                .selectOne(new QueryWrapper<ProjectPreference>().lambda().eq(ProjectPreference::getProjectCode,
                        projectCode));

+        // Validate workerGroup is assigned to project


Suggested change

// Validate workerGroup is assigned to project

SbloodyS · 2026-05-26T07:48:10Z

+                    }
+                }
+            } catch (Exception e) {
+                log.warn("Failed to parse preferences JSON: {}", preferences, e);


throw ServiceException here.

throw ServiceException here.

ok

+                    }
+                }
+            } catch (Exception e) {
+                log.warn("Failed to parse preferences JSON: {}", preferences, e);


+
+        if (StringUtils.isNotBlank(workerGroup)
+                && !projectWorkerGroupRelationService.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject(projectCode, workerGroup)) {
+            log.warn("Worker group {} is not assigned to project {}", workerGroup, projectCode);


SbloodyS

CI failed. Please check it. @njnu-seafish

…wForm

sonarqubecloud · 2026-06-22T04:27:09Z

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
0.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 60%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

…heduler into Improvement-18286

…al mask interception

… E2E tests.

SbloodyS · 2026-07-17T07:32:59Z

The backend still accepts an invalid default worker group.

ProjectWorkerGroupRelationServiceImpl.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject() returns true whenever WorkerGroupUtils.isWorkerGroupEmpty(workerGroup) is true. However, that helper treats both an empty value and the literal "default" as empty. In addition, WorkerGroupValidator skips validation entirely for blank values.

As a result, an API client can still submit either an empty worker group or "default" even when the project has not been assigned that group and no default workers exist. This is exactly the invalid configuration described in #18286, so removing the frontend default does not fully fix the problem.

There is also inconsistent behavior between the two validation paths:

Single-value validation always accepts "default".
Batch validation treats "default" as an ordinary group and may reject it.

Please resolve the effective worker group first and validate it against the project's assigned/existing worker groups, or explicitly reject empty/"default" values when no valid default group is available. Both validation paths should follow the same semantics.

Please also add a service-level test using the real ProjectWorkerGroupRelationServiceImpl behavior for a project that is assigned only g_suyc: g_suyc should pass, while empty and "default" should fail. Mocking isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject() directly will not catch this regression.

…nment; add test cases

njnu-seafish · 2026-07-20T06:52:02Z

The backend still accepts an invalid default worker group.

ProjectWorkerGroupRelationServiceImpl.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject() returns true whenever WorkerGroupUtils.isWorkerGroupEmpty(workerGroup) is true. However, that helper treats both an empty value and the literal "default" as empty. In addition, WorkerGroupValidator skips validation entirely for blank values.

As a result, an API client can still submit either an empty worker group or "default" even when the project has not been assigned that group and no default workers exist. This is exactly the invalid configuration described in #18286, so removing the frontend default does not fully fix the problem.

There is also inconsistent behavior between the two validation paths:

Single-value validation always accepts "default".

Batch validation treats "default" as an ordinary group and may reject it.

Please resolve the effective worker group first and validate it against the project's assigned/existing worker groups, or explicitly reject empty/"default" values when no valid default group is available. Both validation paths should follow the same semantics.

Please also add a service-level test using the real ProjectWorkerGroupRelationServiceImpl behavior for a project that is assigned only g_suyc: g_suyc should pass, while empty and "default" should fail. Mocking isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject() directly will not catch this regression.

ok, add some logics.

1, Modified ProjectWorkerGroupRelationServiceImpl.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject() to:

Return false for empty/null worker group values
Treat "default" as an ordinary group name that must be explicitly assigned

2, Modified WorkerGroupValidator (both single and batch validation) to:

Reject empty/null/blank values with ServiceException
Treat "default" as an ordinary group name

3, Added service-level tests using real ProjectWorkerGroupRelationServiceImpl behavior
to verify g_suyc passes while empty and "default" fail when project only has g_suyc assigned

@test
public void testIsWorkerGroupAssignedToProject() {
Mockito.when(projectDao.queryByCode(projectCode)).thenReturn(getProject());
Mockito.when(projectWorkerGroupDao.queryAssignedWorkerGroupNamesByProjectCode(projectCode))
.thenReturn(Sets.newHashSet("g_suyc")); // 项目只分配了 g_suyc
Mockito.when(taskDefinitionDao.queryAllTaskDefinitionWorkerGroups(projectCode))
.thenReturn(new ArrayList<>());
Mockito.when(scheduleDao.querySchedulerListByProjectName(Mockito.any()))
.thenReturn(Lists.newArrayList());
Assertions.assertTrue(projectWorkerGroupRelationService.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject(projectCode, "g_suyc")); // ✅ g_suyc 通过
Assertions.assertFalse(projectWorkerGroupRelationService.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject(projectCode, "")); // ❌ 空值拒绝
Assertions.assertFalse(projectWorkerGroupRelationService.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject(projectCode, "default")); // ❌ "default" 拒绝
Assertions.assertFalse(projectWorkerGroupRelationService.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject(projectCode, null)); // ❌ null 拒绝
Assertions.assertFalse(projectWorkerGroupRelationService.isWorkerGroupAssignedToProject(projectCode, "unassigned_group")); // ❌ 未分配组拒绝
}

4, Updated WorkerGroupValidatorTest to match new behavior with additional edge case tests

SbloodyS · 2026-07-20T07:13:25Z

Did you forget to submit the code? I didn't see any commit. @njnu-seafish

…API tests

njnu-seafish · 2026-07-20T07:21:26Z

Did you forget to submit the code? I didn't see any commit. @njnu-seafish

Sorry about that, I got held up with some work stuff. Just submitted it, haha.

Remove the default workerGroup from the frontend and add backend vali…

3a82410

…dation for workerGroup

njnu-seafish requested review from SbloodyS and caishunfeng as code owners May 25, 2026 12:35

github-actions Bot added UI ui and front end related backend test labels May 25, 2026

github-actions Bot assigned njnu-seafish May 25, 2026

update import

1d4e03d

ruanwenjun added this to the 3.4.2 milestone May 26, 2026

ruanwenjun reviewed May 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

SbloodyS changed the title ~~[Improvement-18286][ApiServer]Remove the default workerGroup from the frontend and add backend validation for workerGroup~~ [Improvement-18286][ApiServer] Remove the default workerGroup from the frontend and add backend validation for workerGroup May 26, 2026

SbloodyS requested changes May 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

njnu-seafish and others added 2 commits May 26, 2026 20:28

Merge branch 'apache:dev' into Improvement-18286

8d60888

Optimize some issues.

a497475

njnu-seafish requested review from SbloodyS and ruanwenjun May 27, 2026 02:46

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

6c7c487

github-advanced-security AI found potential problems May 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

SbloodyS reviewed May 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

苏义超 and others added 2 commits June 2, 2026 14:29

update unit test

1c0c970

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

b9575ef

github-actions Bot added the e2e e2e test label Jun 2, 2026

njnu-seafish requested a review from SbloodyS June 2, 2026 06:39

SbloodyS modified the milestones: 3.4.2, 3.5.0 Jun 3, 2026

njnu-seafish and others added 5 commits June 5, 2026 09:41

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

96647e1

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

9acd656

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

9f6e1bb

Merge branch 'apache:dev' into Improvement-18286

fe79ac0

update test

1a4e69f

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

564cee2

SbloodyS reviewed Jun 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...inscheduler-api/src/main/java/org/apache/dolphinscheduler/api/dto/ProjectPreferencesDTO.java

Fix E2E test failure: Wait for save button to be clickable in Workflo…

74919b0

…wForm

njnu-seafish requested a review from SbloodyS June 22, 2026 03:13

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

978df66

苏义超 and others added 18 commits June 22, 2026 14:16

Resolve workerGroup validation race condition in E2E tests

b4c698b

format frontend code

f2531a5

Merge branch 'Improvement-18286' of github.com:njnu-seafish/dolphinsc…

9cd44c6

…heduler into Improvement-18286

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

3cbac05

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

a75eacc

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

f327266

Merge branch 'apache:dev' into Improvement-18286

861d8c7

remove WebDriverWaitFactory.createWebDriverWait

1ab127d

add WebDriverWaitFactory.createWebDriverWait

9b1fa14

Fix E2E tests: add setWorkerGroup() for all task types to prevent mod…

ecc17f3

…al mask interception

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

26ab2f7

add import

62bd6ce

Pre-assign project worker group before selecting task worker group in…

fb82c9b

… E2E tests.

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

9b6d650

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

8064469

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

79503f4

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

5346c6c

Merge branch 'dev' into Improvement-18286

b45ff0b

Reject empty/default as implicit worker group; require explicit assig…

469315a

…nment; add test cases

Assign default worker group to projects before creating workflows in …

fde389d

…API tests

Uh oh!

Conversation

njnu-seafish commented May 25, 2026

Was this PR generated or assisted by AI?

Purpose of the pull request

Brief change log

Verify this pull request

Pull Request Notice

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

SbloodyS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud Bot commented Jun 22, 2026

Quality Gate failed

Uh oh!

SbloodyS commented Jul 17, 2026

Uh oh!

njnu-seafish commented Jul 20, 2026

Uh oh!

SbloodyS commented Jul 20, 2026

Uh oh!

njnu-seafish commented Jul 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants