wuzhoupei opened a new pull request, #45268:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/45268

   <!--
   Thanks for opening a pull request!
   If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on how 
   to contribute here:
     * [New Contributor's 
Guide](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/guide/step_by_step/pr_lifecycle.html#reviews-and-merge-of-the-pull-request)
     * [Contributing 
Overview](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/overview.html)
   
   
   If this is not a [minor 
PR](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#Minor-Fixes). 
Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? 
https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose
   
   Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the 
[Openness](http://theapacheway.com/open/#:~:text=Openness%20allows%20new%20users%20the,must%20happen%20in%20the%20open.)
 of the Apache Arrow project.
   
   Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?
   
       GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
   
   or
   
       MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
   
   -->
   
   ### Rationale for this change
   
   When the TaskGroup should be canceled, it will move the number which 
not-start to finished to avoid do them(in `TaskSchedulerImpl::Abort`). But this 
is one operation that happens in multi-threads. At the same time, maybe some 
task start to running and happen some error. Then they will return the bad 
status.  
   But the tasks are running for Scheduler, they will just return bad status 
and not change the running_task count. Because the code uses `RETURN_NOT_OK`.
   
   <!--
    Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in 
the issue then this section is not needed.
    Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your 
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.  
   -->
   
   ### What changes are included in this PR?
   
   For any task, what status weather it returns, it will change the 
running_count before return.
   
   <!--
   There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is 
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
   -->
   
   ### Are these changes tested?
   
   No. It is too hard to build ut.
   
   <!--
   We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
   1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
   2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
   
   If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are 
they covered by existing tests)?
   -->
   
   ### Are there any user-facing changes?
   
   No. But I am very shocked at hasn't this happened to anyone?
   
   - GitHub Issue: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/45266
   
   <!--
   If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be 
updated before approving the PR.
   -->
   
   <!--
   If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please uncomment the line 
below and explain which changes are breaking.
   -->
   <!-- **This PR includes breaking changes to public APIs.** -->
   
   <!--
   Please uncomment the line below (and provide explanation) if the changes fix 
either (a) a security vulnerability, (b) a bug that caused incorrect or invalid 
data to be produced, or (c) a bug that causes a crash (even when the API 
contract is upheld). We use this to highlight fixes to issues that may affect 
users without their knowledge. For this reason, fixing bugs that cause errors 
don't count, since those are usually obvious.
   -->
   <!-- **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** -->


-- 
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]

Reply via email to