Github user tillrohrmann commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4937#discussion_r148601504
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/instance/SlotPool.java ---
@@ -645,6 +668,21 @@ AllocatedSlots getAllocatedSlots() {
return allocatedSlots;
}
+ @VisibleForTesting
+ AvailableSlots getAvailableSlots() {
+ return availableSlots;
+ }
+
+ @VisibleForTesting
+ int getNumOfWaitingForResourceRequests() {
+ return waitingForResourceManager.size();
+ }
+
+ @VisibleForTesting
+ int getNumOfPendingRequests() {
+ return pendingRequests.size();
+ }
--- End diff --
I think we should not make internal state easily accessible because it will
usually be modified by the main thread. Also when checking a certain
interleaving you might be falsely entrapped that you can do something like
```
slotPool.asyncAddPendingRequest()
slotPool.getNumOfPendingRequests() // this returns +1 pending requests
```
This is might work but sometimes it also does not work because the
concurrent operation has not been completed. I would like to make concurrent
operations explicit by, for example, returning a `CompletableFuture<Integer>
getNumberOfPendingRequests` if at all.
---
