equanz commented on code in PR #18807:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18807#discussion_r1051389466
##########
pulsar-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/common/policies/data/stats/TopicStatsImpl.java:
##########
@@ -252,19 +253,15 @@ public TopicStatsImpl add(TopicStats ts) {
return newStats;
}).add((PublisherStatsImpl) s);
} else {
- if (this.publishers.size() != stats.publishers.size()) {
- for (int i = 0; i < stats.publishers.size(); i++) {
- PublisherStatsImpl newStats = new PublisherStatsImpl();
- newStats.setSupportsPartialProducer(false);
-
this.publishers.add(newStats.add(stats.publishers.get(i)));
- }
- } else {
- for (int i = 0; i < stats.publishers.size(); i++) {
- this.publishers.get(i).add(stats.publishers.get(i));
- }
+ if (index == this.publishers.size()) {
+ PublisherStatsImpl newStats = new PublisherStatsImpl();
+ newStats.setSupportsPartialProducer(false);
+ this.publishers.add(newStats);
}
+ this.publishers.get(index)
+ .add((PublisherStatsImpl) s);
Review Comment:
This case may not be in the current codes. If contributors already know "the
caller needs to externally synchronize the access," we don't care in this
section. I'm worried about misimplementation. So, I think it's okay to write
comments about the current spec instead of fixing it to follow my comment.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
