[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16126154#comment-16126154
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7213:
---------------------------------------
Github user StephanEwen commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4353#discussion_r133021720
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinatorTest.java
---
@@ -850,18 +843,20 @@ public void
testSuccessfulCheckpointSubsumesUnsuccessful() {
OperatorID opID2 =
OperatorID.fromJobVertexID(ackVertex2.getJobvertexId());
OperatorID opID3 =
OperatorID.fromJobVertexID(ackVertex3.getJobvertexId());
- Map<OperatorID, OperatorState> operatorStates1 =
pending1.getOperatorStates();
+ TaskStateSnapshot taskOperatorSubtaskStates1_1 =
spy(new TaskStateSnapshot());
--- End diff --
Is spying necessary here? There seem to be no `verify()` calls on this
type...
> Introduce state management by OperatorID in TaskManager
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-7213
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: State Backends, Checkpointing
> Affects Versions: 1.4.0
> Reporter: Stefan Richter
> Assignee: Stefan Richter
>
> Flink-5892 introduced the job manager / checkpoint coordinator part of
> managing state on the operator level instead of the task level by introducing
> explicit operator_id -> state mappings. However, this explicit mapping was
> not introduced in the task manager side, so the explicit mapping is still
> converted into a mapping that suits the implicit operator chain order.
> We should also introduce explicit operator ids to state management on the
> task manager.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
