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

[Followup] Use asList method in some existing configOptions #18

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 5, 2022

Conversation

zuston
Copy link
Member

@zuston zuston commented Jul 4, 2022

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Use asList method in some existing configOptions

Why are the changes needed?

Directly use the asList method in ConfigOptions to get the config list values, and then avoid splitting values by users.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

UTs.

.stringType()
.asList()
.noDefaultValue()
.withDescription("List config key5");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we don't set this option and call method conf.get(emptyListStringOption) directly, what will the result be?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It will return null.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the same behavior as Flink?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. I have checked.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #18 (f05fe5e) into master (eb15611) will decrease coverage by 0.83%.
The diff coverage is 89.47%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master      #18      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     56.27%   55.43%   -0.84%     
+ Complexity     1168     1095      -73     
============================================
  Files           152      143       -9     
  Lines          8397     8034     -363     
  Branches        812      784      -28     
============================================
- Hits           4725     4454     -271     
+ Misses         3408     3324      -84     
+ Partials        264      256       -8     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...in/java/org/apache/uniffle/server/HealthCheck.java 59.52% <50.00%> (ø)
...rg/apache/uniffle/common/config/ConfigOptions.java 91.37% <100.00%> (+0.47%) ⬆️
.../org/apache/uniffle/coordinator/AccessManager.java 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...rg/apache/uniffle/coordinator/CoordinatorConf.java 96.15% <100.00%> (+0.03%) ⬆️
...a/org/apache/uniffle/server/ShuffleServerConf.java 99.28% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
...org/apache/uniffle/server/ShuffleFlushManager.java 76.70% <0.00%> (-1.71%) ⬇️
...e/uniffle/server/storage/SingleStorageManager.java 65.57% <0.00%> (-1.64%) ⬇️
.../apache/uniffle/coordinator/ClientConfManager.java 91.54% <0.00%> (-1.41%) ⬇️
...org/apache/spark/shuffle/writer/AddBlockEvent.java
.../org/apache/spark/shuffle/writer/WriterBuffer.java
... and 8 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update eb15611...f05fe5e. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@jerqi jerqi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@zuston zuston requested a review from jerqi July 5, 2022 02:08
@jerqi jerqi merged commit 8256765 into apache:master Jul 5, 2022
@wForget wForget mentioned this pull request Jul 5, 2022
jerqi pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2022
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Remove redundant package.
Introduced in #18.

### Why are the changes needed?
better code

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No

### How was this patch tested?
No
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants