Github user tzulitai commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5172#discussion_r165663546
--- Diff:
flink-yarn/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/yarn/YarnTaskManagerRunner.java ---
@@ -142,19 +153,10 @@ public static void runYarnTaskManager(String[] args,
final Class<? extends YarnT
SecurityUtils.install(sc);
- SecurityUtils.getInstalledContext().runSecured(new
Callable<Object>() {
- @Override
- public Integer call() {
- try {
-
TaskManager.selectNetworkInterfaceAndRunTaskManager(configuration, resourceId,
taskManager);
- }
- catch (Throwable t) {
- LOG.error("Error while starting
the TaskManager", t);
-
System.exit(TaskManager.STARTUP_FAILURE_RETURN_CODE());
- }
- return null;
- }
- });
+ if (mainRunner == null) {
--- End diff --
I don't think this is a good idea, to add a code path in production code
that exists only for the purpose of injecting a mock runner dependency in tests.
I've added another commit upon @suez1224's changes that makes
`YarnTaskManagerRunner` a factory-like class, that creates a `Runner`
containing all the final configurations. The unit test can then test against
that configuration.
---
