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-7661][network] Add credit field in PartitionRequest message #4698

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

zhijiangW
Copy link
Contributor

@zhijiangW zhijiangW commented Sep 21, 2017

What is the purpose of the change

PartitionRequest message adds the credit field which corresponds to the number of exclusive segments in InputChannel.

This pull request is based on 4499.

Brief change log

  • Add credit field in PartitionRequest message
  • Add getInitialCredit() method in RemoteInputChannel

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as NettyMessageSerializationTest.

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, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)

Documentation

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

@zhijiangW zhijiangW force-pushed the FLINK-7661 branch 2 times, most recently from 1765f70 to feef05e Compare September 26, 2017 06:07
Copy link
Contributor

@NicoK NicoK left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for the contribution.
Looks good to me.

@NicoK
Copy link
Contributor

NicoK commented Sep 27, 2017

Actually, what worries me a bit are the test failures of the 3rd and 4th test profile. I think, they're unrelated (especially the Kafka ones which are kind of instable at the moment in general), but the other ones look strange. Can you let them re-run to see if this is consistent?

@zhijiangW
Copy link
Contributor Author

@NicoK , thanks for your reviews!

I checked the travis failure before and thought it should be existing flaky ones. I will re-trigger the tests later and see the results.

@zhijiangW zhijiangW force-pushed the FLINK-7661 branch 2 times, most recently from 1e3e9eb to 5665a85 Compare September 27, 2017 13:55
@zhijiangW
Copy link
Contributor Author

@NicoK , it already passed travis tests this time.

@NicoK
Copy link
Contributor

NicoK commented Sep 28, 2017

ok, cool, then we can merge this PR as anticipated

@zhijiangW zhijiangW force-pushed the FLINK-7661 branch 2 times, most recently from 8dc3799 to d32430c Compare October 10, 2017 14:37
@zhijiangW
Copy link
Contributor Author

@zentol , I have rebased the latest master codes and solved the conflicts.

@zentol
Copy link
Contributor

zentol commented Oct 11, 2017

merging.

zentol pushed a commit to zentol/flink that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2017
zentol pushed a commit to zentol/flink that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2017
@asfgit asfgit closed this in 891f359 Oct 11, 2017
@zhijiangW zhijiangW deleted the FLINK-7661 branch January 9, 2018 07:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants