Skip to content

Conversation

@wangyang0918
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

The ActionWatcher.await method should declare that it throws an InterruptedException instead of catching it, not resetting the interrupted flag and then throwing a different exception.

Brief change log

  • Throw InterruptedException in ActionWatcher.await

Verifying this change

  • All the tests should work well
  • Manually starting a Flink cluster on K8s

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
  • The serializers: (no)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit d3bc38e (Thu Jan 30 06:45:30 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!
  • This pull request references an unassigned Jira ticket. According to the code contribution guide, tickets need to be assigned before starting with the implementation work.

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

Details
The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jan 30, 2020

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@wangyang0918
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flinkbot run travis

Copy link
Contributor

@tillrohrmann tillrohrmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for creating this PR @wangyang0918. The change looks good. I had a single comment which I will address while merging this PR.

final Duration timeout = TimeUtils.parseDuration(
flinkConfig.get(KubernetesConfigOptions.SERVICE_CREATE_TIMEOUT));

return CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it would be good enough to supply a SupplierWithException here via FunctionUtils.uncheckedSupplier().

tillrohrmann pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 3, 2020
…row a different one in ActionWatcher.await

This closes #10970.
JTaky pushed a commit to JTaky/flink that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2020
…row a different one in ActionWatcher.await

This closes apache#10970.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants