[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8543?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17224126#comment-17224126
]
Beam JIRA Bot commented on BEAM-8543:
-------------------------------------
This issue is assigned but has not received an update in 30 days so it has been
labeled "stale-assigned". If you are still working on the issue, please give an
update and remove the label. If you are no longer working on the issue, please
unassign so someone else may work on it. In 7 days the issue will be
automatically unassigned.
> Dataflow streaming timers are not strictly time ordered when set earlier
> mid-bundle
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-8543
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8543
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: runner-dataflow
> Affects Versions: 2.13.0
> Reporter: Jan Lukavský
> Assignee: Rehman Murad Ali
> Priority: P2
> Labels: stale-assigned
> Fix For: 2.24.0
>
> Time Spent: 3h 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Let's suppose we have the following situation:
> - statful ParDo with two timers - timerA and timerB
> - timerA is set for window.maxTimestamp() + 1
> - timerB is set anywhere between <windowStart, windowEnd), let's denote that
> timerB.timestamp
> - input watermark moves to BoundedWindow.TIMESTAMP_MAX_VALUE
> Then the order of timers is as follows (correct):
> - timerB
> - timerA
> But, if timerB sets another timer (say for timerB.timestamp + 1), then the
> order of timers will be:
> - timerB (timerB.timestamp)
> - timerA (BoundedWindow.TIMESTAMP_MAX_VALUE)
> - timerB (timerB.timestamp + 1)
> Which is not ordered by timestamp. The reason for this is that when the input
> watermark update is evaluated, the WatermarkManager,extractFiredTimers() will
> produce both timerA and timerB. That would be correct, but when timerB sets
> another timer, that breaks this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
