Skip to content

[FLINK-23971][tests] fix connector testing framework error when compare records in different splits#17049

Merged
becketqin merged 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
ruanhang1993:FLINK-23971
Sep 1, 2021
Merged

[FLINK-23971][tests] fix connector testing framework error when compare records in different splits#17049
becketqin merged 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
ruanhang1993:FLINK-23971

Conversation

@ruanhang1993

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

This pull request resolves the error in the connector testing framework, when comparing the result with data in different splits. When achieving your own ExternalContext, the records in different splits returned by method generateTestData should be judged not as equal by method equlas.

Brief change log

  • add the splitIndex parameter to the method generateTestData
  • modify the tests and the implements for ExternalContext, make sure generated records in different splits by generateTestData be judged not as equal

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests

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: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

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

@flinkbot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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 2469730 (Mon Aug 30 11:25:40 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

@flinkbot

flinkbot commented Aug 30, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

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

@ruanhang1993

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@flinkbot run azure

…re records in different splits

Add split index parameter to generate test data, make sure T.equals(object) return false when records come from differernt splits.
@ruanhang1993

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@flinkbot run azure

@becketqin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ruanhang1993 Thanks for the patch. LGTM.

@becketqin becketqin merged commit ad052cc into apache:master Sep 1, 2021
@becketqin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Merged to master: ad052cc

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.

5 participants