[reconfigurator] Add "expunged and unreferenced" zones to PlanningInput
#9730
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This builds on the
BlueprintExpungedZoneAccessReasonadded in #9608, and adds a new set of zone IDs toPlanningInputfor "expunged and unreferenced" zones. These are zones that the planner is safe to prune in a future planning iteration, because they are:This PR only adds the new set of zones to
PlanningInput. It will be nearly trivial to add a step to the planner to "prune all zones present in the planning input'sexpunged_and_unreferencedset", but out of an abundance of caution I'd prefer to land this first, collect a reconfigurator state from some deployed racks, and confirm the contents match what we'd expect on some real systems.This is a little weird in that the logic for whether a zone can be pruned lives in the "prepare a planning input" crate rather than the planner itself, but I think this is reasonable given the implementation of several of the checks (e.g., "query CRDB for this expunged zone specifically" to see whether it's still referenced, which the planner can't do since it doesn't have access to CRDB). Happy to discuss alternatives if this seems wrong upon review.
(We may also want to wait on #7278 before adding the actual prune step?)