Github user zhijiangW commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4533#discussion_r146013922
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/netty/PartitionRequestClientHandlerTest.java
---
@@ -208,6 +211,53 @@ public void testCancelBeforeActive() throws Exception {
client.cancelRequestFor(inputChannel.getInputChannelId());
}
+ /**
+ * Verifies that {@link RemoteInputChannel} is enqueued in the
pipeline, and
+ * {@link AddCredit} message is sent to the producer.
+ */
+ @Test
+ public void testNotifyCreditAvailable() throws Exception {
+ final CreditBasedClientHandler handler = new
CreditBasedClientHandler();
+ final EmbeddedChannel channel = new EmbeddedChannel(handler);
+
+ final RemoteInputChannel inputChannel =
mock(RemoteInputChannel.class);
--- End diff --
Thanks for sharing your idea.
I think I can understand your consideration and agree with that to some
extent.
In my current new added tests, I only want to verify the behaviors for
released channel and un-released channel in handler. So it is easy to just
control `isReleased` property in mocked `InputChannel`, and does not concern
the details in `InputChannel`.
As you said, if someone adds more interactions with `InputChannel` in the
future or so, the previous tests with mocked `InputChannel` may bring potential
risks. Considering this, I am willing to modify the new added tests with real
`InputChannel`. :)
---
