Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

ACCUMULO-4453 Remove constructor code duplication and spammy DEBUG lo… #161

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

ACCUMULO-4453 Remove constructor code duplication and spammy DEBUG lo… #161

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

joshelser
Copy link
Member

…g message

@joshelser
Copy link
Member Author

@dlmarion do you have a moment to take a glance?

@joshelser
Copy link
Member Author

Oh, mvn verify -Psunny passed with this change for me locally.

phrocker
phrocker approved these changes Oct 6, 2016
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@phrocker phrocker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That one comment is a separate change, so I approve of the changes below as they look good. The constructor's usage already exists here so that comment is more or less out of scope

server/tserver/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/tserver/tablet/ScanDataSource.java
}

ScanDataSource(Tablet tablet, Authorizations authorizations, byte[] defaultLabels, AtomicBoolean iFlag) {
this(tablet, tablet.getDataSourceDeletions(), new ScanOptions(-1, authorizations, defaultLabels, EMPTY_COLS, null, null, iFlag, false, null, -1, null),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it's unrelated but would it make sense to have a constructor for scan options that accepts only the configurable arguments in this ScanDataSource constructor? Other than this line it seems fine.

@asfgit asfgit closed this in e75147c Oct 7, 2016
@joshelser
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks, @phrocker! I mused around with making the change you suggested, but, in the end, I just felt like making another many-arg constructor was not helping simplify anything. Can revisit later if desired.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@phrocker phrocker phrocker approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
2 participants
@joshelser @phrocker