Skip to content
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.

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

[FLINK-23474] Extract internal version of InputStatus #16581

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 26, 2021

Conversation

dawidwys
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

This commit separates internal and user facing versions of InputStatus.
User sources should never return e.g. the END_OF_RECOVERY status and
thus we need an internal status.

Verifying this change

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

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, 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)

@dawidwys
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @pnowojski

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jul 23, 2021

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 b632e35 (Sat Aug 28 12:22:19 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.


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 Jul 23, 2021

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

@pnowojski pnowojski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM % a couple of minor comments

Comment on lines +296 to +306
private DataInputStatus convertToInternalStatus(InputStatus inputStatus) {
switch (inputStatus) {
case MORE_AVAILABLE:
return DataInputStatus.MORE_AVAILABLE;
case NOTHING_AVAILABLE:
return DataInputStatus.NOTHING_AVAILABLE;
case END_OF_INPUT:
return DataInputStatus.END_OF_INPUT;
default:
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unknown input status: " + inputStatus);
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would be curious how well JIT can optimise this... probably as long as sourceReader.pollNext() is de-virtualised and inlined this will be for free. But otherwise I would guess it will cost a couple of CPU cycles. Either way I don't expect this to be visible as a performance regression, but I'm just curious...

Comment on lines -53 to -55
/** Indicator that all persisted data of the data exchange has been successfully restored. */
END_OF_RECOVERY,

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change requires a release note 🙄

Comment on lines 23 to 24
* An {@code InputStatus} indicates the availability of data from an asynchronous input. When asking
* an asynchronous input to produce data, it returns this status to indicate how to proceed.
*
* <p>It is an internal equivalent of {@link org.apache.flink.core.io.InputStatus} that provides
* additional non public statuses.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nitty nit: reverse order of the paragraphs? Start with:

DataInputStatus is an internal equivalent of {@link org.apache.flink.core.io.InputStatus} that provides additional non public statuses.

?

@dawidwys dawidwys force-pushed the flink-23474 branch 2 times, most recently from 33acb9c to 2a96fd5 Compare July 25, 2021 10:32
@dawidwys
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flinkbot run azure

This commit separates internal and user facing versions of InputStatus.
User sources should never return e.g. the END_OF_RECOVERY status and
thus we need an internal status.
@dawidwys
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flinkbot run azure

@dawidwys dawidwys merged commit 684d56e into apache:master Jul 26, 2021
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