[SPARK-46353][CORE] Refactor to improve RegisterWorker unit test coverage
#44284
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
dongjoon-hyun
force-pushed
the
SPARK-46353
branch
from
ac7db76
to
f617630
Compare
dongjoon-hyun
changed the title
RegisterWorker unit testRegisterWorker unit test coverage
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Dec 10, 2023
| val masterAddress: RpcAddress = rw.masterAddress | ||
| val resources: Map[String, ResourceInformation] = rw.resources | ||
|
|
||
| logInfo("Registering worker %s:%d with %d cores, %s RAM".format( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The following is a copy&paste of the existing code.
|
cc @viirya |
viirya
approved these changes
Dec 10, 2023
|
Thank you so much, @viirya ! |
dongjoon-hyun
force-pushed
the
SPARK-46353
branch
from
33ac937
to
ad6f845
Compare
dongjoon-hyun
force-pushed
the
SPARK-46353
branch
from
b858ec1
to
284b019
Compare
|
Hi, @viirya . Could you review once more? The following is the change from the original refactoring PR which you approved. - handleRegisterWorker(registerWorker)
+ handleRegisterWorker(id, workerHost, workerPort, workerRef, cores, memory, workerWebUiUrl,
+ masterAddress, resources) |
viirya
reviewed
Dec 12, 2023
| @@ -676,6 +652,45 @@ private[deploy] class Master( | |||
| logInfo(f"Recovery complete in ${timeTakenNs / 1000000000d}%.3fs - resuming operations!") | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| private[master] def handleRegisterWorker( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean this method's parameters change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But its code is still the same right? (copied from existing code)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, the code is the same. I change the parameter of handleRegisterWorker method from a single RegisterWorker class to field parameters to avoid side-effects.
viirya
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2023
|
Thank you so much, @viirya . I'll dig more this area with more test cases. |
szehon-ho
pushed a commit
to szehon-ho/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 7, 2024
…verage This PR aims to improve the unit test coverage for `RegisterWorker` message handling. - Add `handleRegisterWorker` helper method which is testable easily. - Add new unit tests for three conditional branches. It's easily to test and improve. We can add more tests in this way in the future. No. This is a refactoring on the main code and only additions to the test methods. Pass the CIs. No. Closes apache#44284 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-46353. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
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?
This PR aims to improve the unit test coverage for
RegisterWorkermessage handling.handleRegisterWorkerhelper method which is testable easily.Why are the changes needed?
It's easily to test and improve. We can add more tests in this way in the future.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No. This is a refactoring on the main code and only additions to the test methods.
How was this patch tested?
Pass the CIs.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.