[FLINK-22227][clients] Log submitted job name, id and receiving dispa…

[dmvk]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-22227

[flinkbot]

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 223c18f (Wed Aug 18 14:29:25 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]

CI report:

• 157c553 Azure: SUCCESS

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

[zentol]

I get why you did it but this seems unnecessarily complicated and not intuitive. We are just abusing the response to return information we already had at the beginning because the current code structure does not readily provide access it.

This also
a) should be logged before the submission, because the operation may take a while or timeout during leader retrieval
b) should especially be logged if the request fails, which we currently don't.

I would suggest to add a Consumer<URL> argument to sendRetriableRequest that is called on each retry with the WebMonitorBaseUrl.

[dmvk]

Makes sense, I'll try to change this after lunch

[dmvk]

For a) we only log job name and job id. For b) we now log both successful and failed request alongside the receiving dispatcher.

[dmvk]

@zentol Thanks for the review! I've incorporated your suggestion, PTAL

[dmvk]

@zentol I've removed logging details about the retry attempt, PTAL