[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14469?focusedWorklogId=770264&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-770264
 ]

ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-14469:
-----------------------------------------

                Author: ASF GitHub Bot
            Created on: 13/May/22 16:11
            Start Date: 13/May/22 16:11
    Worklog Time Spent: 10m 
      Work Description: jrmccluskey commented on code in PR #17663:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/17663#discussion_r872568086


##########
sdks/go/test/integration/primitives/checkpointing.go:
##########
@@ -57,7 +57,9 @@ func (fn *selfCheckpointingDoFn) SplitRestriction(_ []byte, 
rest offsetrange.Res
        s := rest.Start
        var splits []offsetrange.Restriction
        for e := s + size; e <= rest.End; s, e = e, e+size {
-               splits = append(splits, offsetrange.Restriction{Start: s, End: 
e})
+               if s != e {

Review Comment:
   Yeah I'm having some trouble recreating the issue that was being described, 
and this isn't really doing anything. 





Issue Time Tracking
-------------------

    Worklog Id:     (was: 770264)
    Time Spent: 1.5h  (was: 1h 20m)

> TestCheckpointing produces too many zero-length restrictions
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: BEAM-14469
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14469
>             Project: Beam
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: sdk-go
>            Reporter: Jack McCluskey
>            Assignee: Jack McCluskey
>            Priority: P2
>          Time Spent: 1.5h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The TestCheckpointing integration test produces a large number of zero-length 
> restrictions on split, leading to extremely verbose logging and errors when 
> run on dataflow/with multiple runners. Reducing the number of zero-length 
> restrictions produced in the test should alleviate this problem. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)

Reply via email to