Blobxfer: Retry policy did not allow for a retry

Question

I'm trying to copy all files from one container (or blob storage) to another. While it took a while to come to the following setup, it seems to work, but one issue bothers me. After running the script, the terminal gets flooded with the following messages:

2022-01-25 08:20:46.251962 azure.storage.common.storageclient ERROR %s Retry policy did not allow for a retry: %s, HTTP status code=%s, Exception=%s.
2022-01-25 08:20:46.264437 azure.storage.common.storageclient ERROR %s Retry policy did not allow for a retry: %s, HTTP status code=%s, Exception=%s.
2022-01-25 08:20:46.275297 azure.storage.common.storageclient ERROR %s Retry policy did not allow for a retry: %s, HTTP status code=%s, Exception=%s.
2022-01-25 08:20:46.284932 azure.storage.common.storageclient ERROR %s Retry policy did not allow for a retry: %s, HTTP status code=%s, Exception=%s.
2022-01-25 08:20:46.297475 azure.storage.common.storageclient ERROR %s Retry policy did not allow for a retry: %s, HTTP status code=%s, Exception=%s.
2022-01-25 08:20:46.312018 azure.storage.common.storageclient ERROR %s Retry policy did not allow for a retry: %s, HTTP status code=%s, Exception=%s.
2022-01-25 08:20:46.329865 azure.storage.common.storageclient ERROR %s Retry policy did not allow for a retry: %s, HTTP status code=%s, Exception=%s.

The errors are from the package /azure/storage/common/storageclient.py, it seems to complain there isn't a real "retry" instance, set. But I'm not sure if that is actually the case or how to prevent that issue from popping up.

The code I got so far:

general_options = blobxfer.api.GeneralOptions(
    concurrency=blobxfer.api.ConcurrencyOptions(
        transfer_threads=2,
        disk_threads=2,
        crypto_processes=2,
        md5_processes=2,
        action=3 # 3 = SyncCopy
    ),
    timeout=blobxfer.api.TimeoutOptions(
        connect=1000,
        read=1000,
        max_retries=10
    ),
    progress_bar=True
)

# construct specification
specification = blobxfer.api.SynccopySpecification(
    blobxfer.api.SyncCopyOptions(
        access_tier="Cool",
        delete_extraneous_destination=False,
        delete_only=False,
        dest_mode=StorageModes.Auto,
        mode=StorageModes.Auto,
        overwrite=True,
        recursive=True,
        rename=False,
        server_side_copy=False,
        strip_components=0,
    ),
    blobxfer.api.SkipOnOptions(
        filesize_match=False,
        lmt_ge=True,
        md5_match=False,
    ),
)

source_path = blobxfer.api.AzureSourcePath()

source_path.add_path_with_storage_account(
    remote_path=directorymapping.source,
    storage_account='source-sa',
)
specification.add_azure_source_path(source_path)

destination_path = blobxfer.api.AzureDestinationPath()
destination_path.add_path_with_storage_account(
    remote_path=directorymapping.destination,
    storage_account='destination-sa'
)
specification.add_azure_destination_path(destination_path)

credentials = blobxfer.api.AzureStorageCredentials(
    general_options=general_options
)
credentials.add_storage_account('source-sa', 'source-secret-key', 'core.windows.net')
credentials.add_storage_account('destination-sa', 'destination-secret-key', 'core.windows.net')

synccopy = blobxfer.api.SyncCopy(
    general_options,
    credentials,
    specification
)

synccopy.start()

Altough the messages pop up, the blob files do seem to get transfered correctly!! So I'm not sure if blobxfer actually retries sending the files in the background or anything? I'm just wondering why this message pops up and how to prevent that from happening. And whether there is actually an issue: how to fix it.

EDIT: looked closer into the code and it seems it first tries to check whether a file already exists in a location, and therefore it uses the azure storage module, which logs an error when it cannot find the file. Blobxfer transfers creates the file afterwards, so after running the script for a second time the errors are gone. I still think the error is ugly cause it makes us feel something went terribly wrong. I would love to see a solution for this.