Skip to content

Conversation

@Jiayi-Liao
Copy link
Contributor

@Jiayi-Liao Jiayi-Liao commented Mar 25, 2020

What is the purpose of the change

If an exception is thrown from task's async checkpoint process, the checkpoint will be declined as expected, but the reason for declining checkpoint will be regarded as #CheckpointFailureReason.JOB_FAILURE, which gives a wrong message to users. We should replace #CheckpointFailureReason.JOB_FAILURE with #CheckpointFailureReason.EXCEPTION, otherwise user will see "The job has failed" on Checkpoint UI.

Brief change log

Use #CheckpointException to wrap the exception thrown from #AsyncCheckpointRunnable.

Verifying this change

A trival rework without testing.

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

This change will correct the error message when circumstances mentioned above happen.

Documentation

No need.

@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 8bcdb46 (Wed Mar 25 12:18:30 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

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 Mar 25, 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

Copy link

@geektcp geektcp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok

@klion26
Copy link
Member

klion26 commented Mar 30, 2020

Thanks for the contribution, the change LGTM, could you please update the commit message?

@Jiayi-Liao
Copy link
Contributor Author

@klion26 Thanks for your review. The commit message is updated.

@zhijiangW
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @Jiayi-Liao , can you rebase the codes based on the recent master? Then i can take over to further review it.
Sorry for pending this progress long time.

@Jiayi-Liao
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jiayi-Liao commented Sep 27, 2020

Hi @Jiayi-Liao , can you rebase the codes based on the recent master? Then i can take over to further review it.
Sorry for pending this progress long time.

@zhijiangW Thanks for the review. The rebase is done.

@Jiayi-Liao
Copy link
Contributor Author

@zhijiangW The PR should be good now. Could you take another look?

@Jiayi-Liao Jiayi-Liao requested a review from zhijiangW October 9, 2020 07:33
Copy link
Contributor

@zhijiangW zhijiangW 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 the updates @Jiayi-Liao , LGTM!

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.

6 participants