Skip to content

[hotfix] Simplify the calling on addShutdownHook #26363

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

beliefer
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

This PR proposes to simplify the calling on addShutdownHook.

Brief change log

Simplify the calling on addShutdownHook.

Verifying this change

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
  • The serializers: (no)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)

@beliefer
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Mar 27, 2025

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
if (callerHasHook) {
// Verifies the case that both FileChannelManager and its upper component
// have registered shutdown hooks, like in IOManager.
ShutdownHookUtil.addShutdownHook(() -> manager.close(), "Caller", LOG);
ShutdownHookUtil.addShutdownHook(manager, "Caller", LOG);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think this test drives the changed code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand what you said. Could you tell me more?

Copy link
Contributor

@davidradl davidradl Apr 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sorry. The changed code is in method

public IOManagerAsync(String[] tempDirs, ExecutorService executorService) {
        super(tempDirs, executorService);

So to test this we need to drive this method. I think you have a test that tests the same pattern but not the actual changed code.

am I missing something?

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.

None yet

3 participants