[MINOR] test(tez): add storage type configs in TezRemoteShuffleManagerTest #1015
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1015 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 44.23% 54.80% +10.57%
- Complexity 0 2522 +2522
=============================================
Files 20 362 +342
Lines 2360 19287 +16927
Branches 0 1798 +1798
=============================================
+ Hits 1044 10571 +9527
- Misses 1245 8083 +6838
- Partials 71 633 +562 see 382 files with indirect coverage changes 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
|
LGTM |
zhengchenyu
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2023
jerqi
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Add storage type configs in TezRemoteShuffleManagerTest
Why are the changes needed?
StorageType defaults to null, which blocks #980.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Tested with #980.