XComp commented on code in PR #25027:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/25027#discussion_r1703278478
##########
flink-runtime/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/dispatcher/TestingJobManagerRunnerRegistry.java:
##########
@@ -188,11 +197,26 @@ public static class Builder {
private Supplier<Collection<JobManagerRunner>>
getJobManagerRunnersSupplier =
Collections::emptyList;
private Function<JobID, JobManagerRunner> unregisterFunction =
ignoredJobId -> null;
- private BiFunction<JobID, Executor, CompletableFuture<Void>>
localCleanupAsyncFunction =
- (ignoredJobId, ignoredExecutor) ->
FutureUtils.completedVoidFuture();
+ private TriFunction<JobID, Executor, Executor, CompletableFuture<Void>>
+ localCleanupAsyncFunction =
+ (ignoredJobId, ignoredExecutor, mainThreadExecutor) ->
+ FutureUtils.completedVoidFuture();
private BiFunction<JobID, Executor, CompletableFuture<Void>>
globalCleanupAsyncFunction =
(ignoredJobId, ignoredExecutor) ->
FutureUtils.completedVoidFuture();
+ private Builder fromDefaultJobManagerRunnerRegistry(
Review Comment:
What's the purpose of this? It looks like we map each of the
`DefaultJobManagerRunnerRegistry` methods to the
`TestingJobManagerRunnerRegistry` callback generating actually a "new"
`DefaultJobManagerRunnerRegistry` instance wrapped in a
`TestingJobManagerRunnerRegistry`. We could just use
`DefaultJobManagerRunnerRegistry`, instead. Don't you think? :thinking:
--
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]
