[#1342] improvement(server): dump appId when clearing resource fails - #1343
Merged
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1343 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 53.25% 54.14% +0.89%
Complexity 2706 2706
============================================
Files 418 398 -20
Lines 23866 21514 -2352
Branches 2036 2038 +2
============================================
- Hits 12709 11649 -1060
+ Misses 10374 9153 -1221
+ Partials 783 712 -71 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
roryqi
approved these changes
Dec 1, 2023
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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?
record the appId and shuffleIds in the log when clearing resource fail
Why are the changes needed?
Fix: #1342
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Neen't