[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3166?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15062276#comment-15062276
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-3166:
---------------------------------------
Github user zentol commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1464#issuecomment-165501540
"Object reuse is configured in JavaProgramTestBase but must be set in the
ExecutionEnvironmentFactory by TestEnvironment. I don't see that any of the
many tests subclassing JavaProgramTestBase were testing with object reuse
enabled."
Does this (L.112 JavaProgramTestBase)
```
// prepare the test environment
TestEnvironment env = new TestEnvironment(this.executor, this.parallelism);
env.getConfig().enableObjectReuse();
env.setAsContext();
```
not enable (and as such force) object reuse for every test that extends
JavaProgramTestBase?
> The first program in ObjectReuseITCase has the wrong expected result, and it
> succeeds
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-3166
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3166
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Distributed Runtime, Documentation, Tests
> Reporter: Gabor Gevay
> Assignee: Greg Hogan
> Priority: Critical
>
> The first program in ObjectReuseITCase has the following input:
> a,1
> a,2
> a,3
> a,4
> a,50
> There is a groupBy on field 0, and then a reduce, so the result should be
> 1+2+3+4+50 = 60. But the hardcoded expected result is 100, and running the
> Flink program also produces this.
> The problem is caused my mismatched assumptions between
> ReduceCombineDriver.sortAndCombine and the ReduceFunction in the test about
> object reuse rules of ReduceFunctions:
> ReduceCombineDriver.sortAndCombine has the following comment:
> "The user function is expected to return the first input as the result."
> While the ReduceFunction in the test is modifying and returning the second
> input. (And the second program in the test also has the same problem.)
> I can't find the assumption that is stated in the comment in any
> documentation. For example, the javadoc of ReduceFunction should make the
> user aware of this. Or, alternatively, the code of the driver should be
> modified to not make this assumption. I'm not sure which solution is better.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
