Fix putObject warning by benzekrimaha · Pull Request #2316 · scality/Zenko

benzekrimaha · 2026-02-10T15:27:48Z

bert-e · 2026-02-10T15:27:52Z

Hello benzekrimaha,

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.

This commit introduces a middleware to fix the PutObject warning that occurs when the content length is not provided. This middleware checks for the presence of the content length header and sets it to 0 if it is missing or appropriately handles it, ensuring that the PutObject operation can proceed without warnings. This ensures that the PutObject operation can proceed without warnings. Issue: ZENKO-5128

bert-e · 2026-02-16T09:12:45Z

Waiting for approval

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

the author
2 peers

tests/ctst/steps/utils/utils.ts

francoisferrand · 2026-02-16T11:09:14Z

tests/zenko_tests/node_tests/s3SDK.js

 });

-const scalityS3Client = new S3Client({
+function attachContentLengthMiddleware(client) {


not clear why we need this middleware : it would be required to automatically compute the ContentLength from Body.... but in uploadSetup() you systematically set the value already (and conversely: if we already add this middleware, no point doing it as well in uploadSetup)

In uploadSetup it's setup when the body is empty only , this one is to avoid having to put the contentLength each time we call the method , the middleWare is called upon client creation

after checking => UploadSetup runs only in the CLI cucumber steps, so it has to inject contentLength (including the zero-byte PutObject fallback). The middleware sits on the Node SDK clients used by the node test suite, which never call uploadSetup, so it fills ContentLength there. Two separate harnesses, two helpers; both are needed

on second read : I understand we can't use the same "fix" as CTST, but I wonder if we have that many cases where adding the length is needed?

If it is only in a few places, would be much simpler to just update these few calls to make "correct" calls to the SDK v3. This may increase the length of the change (PutObjectCommand is used 36 times, though we may not need to fix them all), but it will have much lower cognitive complexity, and will avoid leaving incorrect code here which may be copy-pasted (to some other repo) and fail there. Especially since this is not seamless anyway, as the client must be created in some custom way.

francoisferrand · 2026-02-16T11:10:38Z

tests/zenko_tests/node_tests/s3SDK.js

+    client.middlewareStack.add(
+        (next, context) => async args => {
+            const input = args.input || {};
+            if (context?.commandName === 'PutObjectCommand'


why only PutObjectCommand ? why not as well put part ?

is it not the same logic as below, and just another kind of Body ?

Suggested change

if (context?.commandName === 'PutObjectCommand'

if (input.ContentLength !== undefined || context?.commandName !== 'PutObjectCommand') {

return next(args);

}

if (!input.Body) {

input.Body = '';

input.ContentLength = 0;

} else if (Buffer.isBuffer(input.Body)) {

input.ContentLength = input.Body.length;

} else [...]

The PutObject only guard is just for the case where a test creates an empty object without providing a body. In that situation the SDK can’t compute contentLength, so we synthesise both values before sending the command. Every other flow (including all UploadPart calls) already pass a real body, for which we calculate the payload's contentLength automatically.

ok-ish for first question (maybe we don't go into that path, but it would not harm to handle it as well?)

suggestion for simplification still stands, code is nested and harder to read than it should...

bert-e · 2026-02-16T11:14:22Z

Waiting for approval

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

the author
2 peers

The following reviewers are expecting changes from the author, or must review again:

@francoisferrand

SylvainSenechal · 2026-02-17T10:13:55Z

tests/zenko_tests/node_tests/s3SDK.js

+            const input = args.input || {};
+            if (context?.commandName === 'PutObjectCommand'
+                && (input.Body === undefined || input.Body === null)) {
+                input.Body = '';


are you sure you need to modify body, I think we just need to have content length set to a value

we only do so when it's undefined or null as an additionnal safety gate

SylvainSenechal

Works for me but might be other less intrusive method than a global middleware, I think passing the value ContentLength: xx to all putObjectCommand could've fixed it. We have ~25 putObjectCommand in zenko test, but I think everytime, the content length is very well known in advance as an hardcoded value (or 0)

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/ZENKO-5128-fix-putObject-warning branch from 4555ab4 to cf2aadd Compare February 10, 2026 16:04

benzekrimaha force-pushed the improvement/ZENKO-5128-fix-putObject-warning branch from 19ccb35 to 3fc5dc9 Compare February 16, 2026 08:46

benzekrimaha marked this pull request as ready for review February 16, 2026 10:59

scality deleted a comment from bert-e Feb 16, 2026

benzekrimaha requested review from a team, SylvainSenechal, delthas, francoisferrand and maeldonn February 16, 2026 10:59

francoisferrand reviewed Feb 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/ctst/steps/utils/utils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

francoisferrand reviewed Feb 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/ctst/steps/utils/utils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

francoisferrand reviewed Feb 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

francoisferrand requested changes Feb 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha changed the title ~~Improvement/zenko 5128 fix put object warning~~ Fix putObject warning Feb 16, 2026

SylvainSenechal reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

SylvainSenechal approved these changes Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

benzekrimaha requested a review from francoisferrand February 18, 2026 14:32

-            if (context?.commandName === 'PutObjectCommand'
+if (input.ContentLength !== undefined || context?.commandName !== 'PutObjectCommand') {
+    return next(args);
+}
+if (!input.Body) {
+   input.Body = '';
+   input.ContentLength = 0;
+} else if (Buffer.isBuffer(input.Body)) {
+   input.ContentLength = input.Body.length;
+} else [...]

Conversation

benzekrimaha commented Feb 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Feb 10, 2026

Hello benzekrimaha,

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Feb 16, 2026

Waiting for approval

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Feb 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

benzekrimaha Feb 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

benzekrimaha Feb 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Feb 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Feb 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

benzekrimaha Feb 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

francoisferrand Feb 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bert-e commented Feb 16, 2026

Waiting for approval

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

benzekrimaha Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SylvainSenechal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Comments

benzekrimaha commented Feb 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

francoisferrand Feb 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

francoisferrand Feb 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

benzekrimaha Feb 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading