Skip to content

Conversation

@aljoscha
Copy link
Contributor

@aljoscha aljoscha commented Apr 1, 2020

Before, when using PackagedProgramUtils (for example in the standalone cluster entrypoint or the web ui) the Flink Configuration would not be applied to the execution environment.

This also adds a test that verifies that we forward configuration.

This is a version of #11607 for Flink 1.10. There are slight differences because the plan environments were changed. Also the tests are in a different place because in Flink 1.10 the dependencies between flink-clients and flink-streaming-java are reversed.

Brief change log

  • change OptimizerPlanEnvironment and StreamPlanEnvironment constructors to accept a Configuration and forward to the correct super constructor.

Verifying this change

  • see the newly added test

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: indirectly, because we now correctly forward also deployment options
  • The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no

…neFromProgram

Before, when using PackagedProgramUtils (for example in the standalone
cluster entrypoint or the web ui) the Flink Configuration would not be
applied to the execution environment.

This also adds a test that verifies that we forward configuration.
@aljoscha aljoscha requested a review from kl0u April 1, 2020 16:04
@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Apr 1, 2020

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 2ecc283 (Wed Apr 15 11:39:20 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 Apr 1, 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
Contributor

@kl0u kl0u left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look good but the build is failing:

18:12:46.103 [ERROR] src/test/java/org/apache/flink/client/program/PackagedProgramUtilsTest.java:[69] (javadoc) JavadocType: Missing a Javadoc comment.

Please fix and feel free to merge!

@aljoscha
Copy link
Contributor Author

aljoscha commented Apr 2, 2020

Merged.

@aljoscha aljoscha closed this Apr 2, 2020
@aljoscha aljoscha deleted the flink-16560-config-in-hijack-pattern-release-110 branch April 2, 2020 08:15
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