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-35359][config] General Improvement to Configuration for Flink 2.0 #24815

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

Sxnan
Copy link
Contributor

@Sxnan Sxnan commented May 21, 2024

What is the purpose of the change

As Flink moves toward version 2.0, we want to provide users with a better experience with the existing configuration. In this PR, we make several improvements to the current configuration.

Brief change log

  • Ensure all the ConfigOptions are properly annotated
  • Ensure all user-facing configurations are included in the documentation generation process
  • Make the existing ConfigOptions use the proper type
  • Mark all internally used ConfigOptions with the Internal annotation

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): yes
  • 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
Collaborator

flinkbot commented May 21, 2024

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@Sxnan Sxnan force-pushed the FLINK-35359 branch 4 times, most recently from e3be775 to f80e6e0 Compare May 22, 2024 01:13
@Sxnan Sxnan marked this pull request as ready for review May 22, 2024 01:14
Sxnan added 3 commits May 23, 2024 12:06
…ctory from user-defined class name

There are no use internally to instantiate the BlockCompressionFactory from class name. Even though, it is possible for user to pass a user-defined class name to BlockCompressionFactory, this ability is never exposed in any public documentation.
@Sxnan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sxnan commented May 23, 2024

@xintongsong Thanks for the review! I updated the PR accordingly. Please take another look.

Copy link
Contributor

@xintongsong xintongsong left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Merging.

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.

3 participants