Skip to content

[hotfix][typo]Fix typo in UnsignedTypeConversionITCase #14849

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
Merged
wuchong merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2021
Merged

[hotfix][typo]Fix typo in UnsignedTypeConversionITCase #14849

wuchong merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2021

Conversation

@V1ncentzzZ
Copy link
Contributor

@V1ncentzzZ V1ncentzzZ commented Feb 3, 2021

What is the purpose of the change

(For example: This pull request makes task deployment go through the blob server, rather than through RPC. That way we avoid re-transferring them on each deployment (during recovery).)

Brief change log

Fix typo in UnsignedTypeConversionITCase

Verifying this change

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

  • Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (100MB)
  • Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager) failure
  • Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once across recoveries
  • Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2 JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and killing one JobManager and two TaskManagers during the execution, verifying that recovery happens correctly.

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

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
  • The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

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

@V1ncentzzZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

V1ncentzzZ commented Feb 3, 2021

cc @leonardBang

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Feb 3, 2021 •
edited
Loading

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 2de789e (Fri May 28 08:18:11 UTC 2021)

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

leonardBang
leonardBang reviewed Feb 3, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@leonardBang leonardBang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank @V1ncentzzZ for the contribution , Left minor comment

...r-jdbc/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/connector/jdbc/table/UnsignedTypeConversionITCase.java Outdated
}
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.warn("Initialize DB fail caused by {}", e);
logger.warn("Initialize DB fail caused by ", e);
Copy link
Contributor

@leonardBang leonardBang Feb 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this should work properly?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@V1ncentzzZ V1ncentzzZ Feb 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, but the {} is an useless character.

...r-jdbc/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/connector/jdbc/table/UnsignedTypeConversionITCase.java Outdated
throw new IllegalStateException(
String.format(
"Initialize MySQL database instance failed after {} attempts,"
"Initialize MySQL database instance failed after %s attempts,"
Copy link
Contributor

@leonardBang leonardBang Feb 3, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice catch? how about %s -> %d

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Feb 3, 2021 •
edited
Loading

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

leonardBang
leonardBang approved these changes Feb 3, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@leonardBang leonardBang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, +1 once the build passed

wuchong
wuchong approved these changes Feb 5, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@wuchong wuchong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@wuchong wuchong merged commit 48cd320 into apache:release-1.12 Feb 5, 2021
@wuchong
Copy link
Member

wuchong commented Feb 5, 2021

@V1ncentzzZ could you open a pull request for master too?

@V1ncentzzZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

V1ncentzzZ commented Feb 5, 2021

Thanks @wuchong @leonardBang , this PR for master.

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

Reviewers

@leonardBang leonardBang leonardBang approved these changes

@wuchong wuchong wuchong approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

review=description?

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@V1ncentzzZ @flinkbot @wuchong @leonardBang @rmetzger