TheNeuralBit commented on a change in pull request #15890:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15890#discussion_r762206314
##########
File path:
examples/java/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/examples/snippets/Snippets.java
##########
@@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ public static void modelBigQueryIO(
{
// [START BigQueryDataTypes]
+ @SuppressWarnings("ModifiedButNotUsed")
Review comment:
Is there a way to suppress this so it's not in between the START and END
comments? Everything there gets pulled into documentation on beam.apache.org
##########
File path:
runners/google-cloud-dataflow-java/worker/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/dataflow/worker/DataflowElementExecutionTracker.java
##########
@@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ private void attributeProcessingTime(Duration duration,
long snapshot) {
executionCount.getKey(),
(unused, total) -> {
int numExecutions = executionCount.getValue();
+ @SuppressWarnings("PreferJavaTimeOverload")
Review comment:
Is this a false positive? I'm not sure what the check is expecting you
to change here
##########
File path:
sdks/java/extensions/sql/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/extensions/sql/meta/provider/kafka/BeamKafkaTable.java
##########
@@ -222,6 +222,7 @@ public BeamTableStatistics
getTableStatistics(PipelineOptions options) {
throw new NoEstimationException("There is no partition with messages in
it.");
}
+ @SuppressWarnings("PreferJavaTimeOverload")
ConsumerRecords<T, T> records = consumer.poll(1000);
Review comment:
```suggestion
ConsumerRecords<T, T> records = consumer.poll(Duration.ofMillis(1000));
```
##########
File path:
sdks/java/core/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/splittabledofn/GrowableOffsetRangeTrackerTest.java
##########
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ public void testProgressAfterFinished() throws Exception {
tracker.checkDone();
simpleEstimator.setEstimateRangeEnd(0L);
Progress currentProgress = tracker.getProgress();
- assertEquals(Long.MAX_VALUE - 10L, currentProgress.getWorkCompleted(),
0.001);
+ assertEquals(Long.MAX_VALUE - 10L, currentProgress.getWorkCompleted(), 0);
Review comment:
I think the spirit of
https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/FloatingPointAssertionWithinEpsilon is that
we shouldn't specify epsilon, since it's small enough that we're doing an exact
equality check anyway.
```suggestion
assertEquals(Long.MAX_VALUE - 10L, currentProgress.getWorkCompleted();
```
##########
File path:
sdks/java/harness/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/fn/harness/state/StateFetchingIteratorsTest.java
##########
@@ -268,7 +267,7 @@ public void testManyValues() throws Exception {
assertEquals(Math.min(i + 2, expected.length), callCount.get());
}
assertTrue(valuesIter2.hasNext());
- results.add(valuesIter2.next());
+ valuesIter2.next();
}
assertFalse(valuesIter2.hasNext());
assertTrue(valuesIter2.isReady());
Review comment:
Can you try adding that? If it makes the test fail let's file a jira to
follow up on this.
##########
File path:
sdks/java/harness/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/fn/harness/state/StateFetchingIteratorsTest.java
##########
@@ -268,7 +267,7 @@ public void testManyValues() throws Exception {
assertEquals(Math.min(i + 2, expected.length), callCount.get());
}
assertTrue(valuesIter2.hasNext());
- results.add(valuesIter2.next());
+ valuesIter2.next();
}
assertFalse(valuesIter2.hasNext());
assertTrue(valuesIter2.isReady());
Review comment:
I asked about this over in
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15475/files/0ebe6567a2057cdb642833c5c9d28853ec5ecdd6#r762215539
It seems the intention was to validate `results` like this:
```suggestion
assertTrue(valuesIter2.isReady());
assertArrayEquals(expected, Iterables.toArray(results, Object.class));
```
--
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]
