[CELEBORN-1397] Fix compilation error on branch-0.4#2475
Closed
onebox-li wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:branch-0.4from
Closed
[CELEBORN-1397] Fix compilation error on branch-0.4#2475onebox-li wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:branch-0.4from
onebox-li wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:branch-0.4from
Conversation
Contributor
|
I can see that there are UT failures, can you investigate the failures? |
Member
|
@onebox-li, @FMX, #2369 and #2372 does not cherry pick, which cause the failure of CI. |
onebox-li
force-pushed
the
branch-0.4-fix-compile
branch
from
fcaf690 to
9b9c03b
Compare
mridulm
reviewed
Apr 23, 2024
common/src/main/scala/org/apache/celeborn/common/CelebornConf.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
onebox-li
force-pushed
the
branch-0.4-fix-compile
branch
from
9b9c03b to
d74cf8f
Compare
onebox-li
force-pushed
the
branch-0.4-fix-compile
branch
from
d74cf8f to
186e5ae
Compare
pan3793
approved these changes
Apr 23, 2024
Contributor
|
LGTM |
SteNicholas
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Fix MasterClient construct method use in MasterClientSuiteJ. ### Why are the changes needed? MasterClient's construct method has changed by #2281 on main. It's a feature to support authentication on branch-0.5. #2466 's backport on branch-0.4 here caused a conflict in MasterClientSuiteJ.java:319. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Local compile test. Closes #2475 from onebox-li/branch-0.4-fix-compile. Authored-by: onebox-li <lyh-36@163.com> Signed-off-by: SteNicholas <programgeek@163.com>
Member
|
Merging to branch-0.4(v0.4.1). |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks all for review, and @SteNicholas cherry-pick necessary PRs. |
cfmcgrady
pushed a commit
to cfmcgrady/incubator-celeborn
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2025
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Fix MasterClient construct method use in MasterClientSuiteJ. ### Why are the changes needed? MasterClient's construct method has changed by apache#2281 on main. It's a feature to support authentication on branch-0.5. apache#2466 's backport on branch-0.4 here caused a conflict in MasterClientSuiteJ.java:319. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Local compile test. Closes apache#2475 from onebox-li/branch-0.4-fix-compile. Authored-by: onebox-li <lyh-36@163.com> Signed-off-by: SteNicholas <programgeek@163.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Fix MasterClient construct method use in MasterClientSuiteJ.
Why are the changes needed?
MasterClient's construct method has changed by #2281 on main. It's a feature to support authentication on branch-0.5.
#2466 's backport on branch-0.4 here caused a conflict in MasterClientSuiteJ.java:319.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Local compile test.