[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7520?focusedWorklogId=346944&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-346944
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-7520:
----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 20/Nov/19 19:01
Start Date: 20/Nov/19 19:01
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: je-ik commented on issue #9869: [BEAM-7520] ignore
UsesStrictTimerOrdering for both batch and streami…
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9869#issuecomment-556251504
@mxm we definitely should fix that. There is tracking issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8460
There was a notification thread
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg16786.html
The reason why this it tagged by the issue [BEAM-7520] is that the
@Category(ValidatesRunner) tests were originally created in that issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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: 346944)
Time Spent: 20h 50m (was: 20h 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
> Fix For: 2.17.0
>
> Time Spent: 20h 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
(v8.3.4#803005)
