[FLINK-24129][connectors-pulsar] Harden TopicRangeTest.rangeCreationH…

[dmvk]

Fix test instability - https://dataartisans.atlassian.net/browse/DECO-1174

Tests fails if random.nextInt(10_000) results to zero (not as unlikely as it seems :))

[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 537432a (Mon Sep 06 09:46:25 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:

• 335b113 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

[XComp]

The change looks good to me. I verified that passing 0 is the issue. But I'm wondering why we actually run a repeated test here. @syhily why is it necessary to use random numbers here?

To me, it looks like we could split up this test method into three separate test methods that tests the three cases below range, within range and above range. Each of these tests would only be executed once with a static number. Or am I missing something? 🤔

[dmvk]

You're correct, there is no reason for having a repeated test with random input here, I was thinking about this as well.

I'll change it, this is just too hard to understand for what it actually tests.

[dmvk]

@XComp changed, PTAL

[XComp]

Thanks for addressing my comments, @dmvk . I have two remarks. Feel free to address them. The change looks good. 👍

[syhily]

The change looks good to me. I verified that passing 0 is the issue. But I'm wondering why we actually run a repeated test here. @syhily why is it necessary to use random numbers here?

To me, it looks like we could split up this test method into three separate test methods that tests the three cases below range, within range and above range. Each of these tests would only be executed once with a static number. Or am I missing something? 🤔

It's unnecessary to use repeat test, we can just remove it. Pass 0 is the issue, I think we can just remove the random number.

[XComp]

It's unnecessary to use repeat test, we can just remove it. Pass 0 is the issue, I think we can just remove the random number.

Thanks for your confirmation, @syhily 👍

[dmvk]

@XComp Thanks for the review, I've addressed your comments, PTAL

[XComp]

LGTM 👍

[syhily]

LGTM

[syhily]

@XComp This PR should also be merged into release-1.14.

[XComp]

@syhily Good point. I created #17312 as the backport PR for FLINK-24129.

[rmetzger]

Thanks for the fix & review. Merging ...