Documentation problem type
Inaccurate or outdated content
Documentation location
The compaction-routing settings panel in the dashboard, and the combo warning text it renders
What is wrong or missing?
Two user-visible strings on the compaction-routing surface describe behaviour the code does not have. Both were found while landing #5202 and were left out of it on purpose, since neither is a routing defect and folding them in would have widened a feature PR into unrelated copy edits.
The first is provider identification. The panel decides whether a selection is a combo by testing for a combo/ prefix. A combo reached through an alias does not carry that prefix, so the panel shows no target provider at all for it — the operator sees a blank where the answer exists.
The second is the combo warning itself. It tells the operator that the routed compaction request goes to every failover target. It does not. The runtime tries them one at a time and stops at the first that answers. An operator reading the current text would reasonably expect fan-out cost and fan-out latency from a single compaction, and would budget for something that never happens.
What should the documentation explain instead?
The panel should identify a combo by asking what the selection resolves to rather than by inspecting its name, so an aliased combo names its target the same way a prefixed one does.
The warning should say that targets are attempted in order until one answers, which is both what happens and the thing an operator actually needs in order to reason about a compaction that is slower than expected.
Suggested wording or example
For the warning, something close to: "This combo attempts its failover targets in order and uses the first that responds." The precise phrasing is open; what matters is that "all targets" stops appearing, because that is the part that misleads.
Additional context or attachments
Both were recorded in the #5202 description at the time. Filed separately so the copy fix and the alias-resolution fix can be reviewed as what they are.
Checks
Documentation problem type
Inaccurate or outdated content
Documentation location
The compaction-routing settings panel in the dashboard, and the combo warning text it renders
What is wrong or missing?
Two user-visible strings on the compaction-routing surface describe behaviour the code does not have. Both were found while landing #5202 and were left out of it on purpose, since neither is a routing defect and folding them in would have widened a feature PR into unrelated copy edits.
The first is provider identification. The panel decides whether a selection is a combo by testing for a
combo/prefix. A combo reached through an alias does not carry that prefix, so the panel shows no target provider at all for it — the operator sees a blank where the answer exists.The second is the combo warning itself. It tells the operator that the routed compaction request goes to every failover target. It does not. The runtime tries them one at a time and stops at the first that answers. An operator reading the current text would reasonably expect fan-out cost and fan-out latency from a single compaction, and would budget for something that never happens.
What should the documentation explain instead?
The panel should identify a combo by asking what the selection resolves to rather than by inspecting its name, so an aliased combo names its target the same way a prefixed one does.
The warning should say that targets are attempted in order until one answers, which is both what happens and the thing an operator actually needs in order to reason about a compaction that is slower than expected.
Suggested wording or example
For the warning, something close to: "This combo attempts its failover targets in order and uses the first that responds." The precise phrasing is open; what matters is that "all targets" stops appearing, because that is the part that misleads.
Additional context or attachments
Both were recorded in the #5202 description at the time. Filed separately so the copy fix and the alias-resolution fix can be reviewed as what they are.
Checks