[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7520?focusedWorklogId=298853&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-298853
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-7520:
----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 21/Aug/19 16:52
Start Date: 21/Aug/19 16:52
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: je-ik commented on pull request #9190: [BEAM-7520] Fix
timer firing order in DirectRunner
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9190#discussion_r316292063
##########
File path:
runners/direct-java/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/direct/CommittedResult.java
##########
@@ -18,10 +18,10 @@
package org.apache.beam.runners.direct;
import com.google.auto.value.AutoValue;
+import java.util.Optional;
Review comment:
There was a very healthy discussion about usage of `Optional` on flink
mailing list:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f5f8ce92f94c9be6774340fbd7ae5e4afe07386b6765ad3cfb13aec0@%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E
General consensus is that `Optional` should not be used for fields, but only
for return values of performance non-critical code. I very much agree with
that, if `Optional` is not used as field, its serializability doesn't matter.
Moreover, DirectRunner does not rely that heavily on serialization (more than
validating, that the user code is serializable). Using standard instead of
guava seems to be beneficial to me, without any negative impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 298853)
Time Spent: 7h 50m (was: 7h 40m)
> DirectRunner timers are not strictly time ordered
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-7520
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7520
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: runner-direct
> Affects Versions: 2.13.0
> Reporter: Jan Lukavský
> Assignee: Jan Lukavský
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 7h 50m
> 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
(v8.3.2#803003)
