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

[SPARK-13397] Cleanup transient annotations which aren't being applied #11727

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

breakdawn
Copy link

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This cleanup the transient annotations which aren't being applied. The followings are the warnings
GSchedulerSuite.scala:70: no valid targets for annotation on value tracker - it is discarded unused. You may specify targets with meta-annotations, e.g. @(transient @param)
@transient tracker: MapOutputTrackerMaster = null)
SerializationDebuggerSuite.scala:222: no valid targets for annotation on value replacementFieldObject - it is discarded unused. You may specify targets with meta-annotations, e.g. @(transient @param)
class SerializableClassWithWriteReplace(@transient replacementFieldObject: Object)
ReceiverTrackerSuite.scala:108: no valid targets for annotation on value _ssc - it is discarded unused. You may specify targets with meta-annotations, e.g. @(transient @param)
class RateTestInputDStream(@transient _ssc: StreamingContext)

How was this patch tested?

Manual.
During building, there should be no warning on transient annotation unused.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Mar 15, 2016

This is covered by #11725 I agree with the changes, except that I think that in the third instance the annotation actually won't make a difference and should be removed. The superclass retains a non-transient reference anyway.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@breakdawn
Copy link
Author

I agree that the third annotation can be removed, the reason is the base class DStream has marked it as transient anyway.
By the way, should i close this PR since it's covered by #11725?

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Mar 15, 2016

Yeah sorry we had a bit of a race condition here. I submitted the PR just before this, and actually didn't realize there was a whole separate JIRA for this one issue.

@breakdawn
Copy link
Author

That's fine, maybe next time.

@breakdawn breakdawn closed this Mar 15, 2016
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