StephanEwen commented on a change in pull request #15557:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/15557#discussion_r613298868
##########
File path:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/operators/coordination/OperatorEventValve.java
##########
@@ -96,42 +94,44 @@ public boolean isShut() {
* (because it gets dropped through a call to {@link #reset()} or {@link
#resetForTask(int)},
* then the returned future till be completed exceptionally.
*/
- public CompletableFuture<Acknowledge> sendEvent(
- SerializedValue<OperatorEvent> event, int subtask) {
- synchronized (lock) {
- if (!shut) {
- return eventSender.apply(event, subtask);
- }
-
- final List<BlockedEvent> eventsForTask =
- blockedEvents.computeIfAbsent(subtask, (key) -> new
ArrayList<>());
- final CompletableFuture<Acknowledge> future = new
CompletableFuture<>();
- eventsForTask.add(new BlockedEvent(event, subtask, future));
- return future;
+ public void sendEvent(
+ SerializedValue<OperatorEvent> event,
+ int subtask,
+ CompletableFuture<Acknowledge> result) {
+ checkRunsInMainThread();
+
+ if (!shut) {
+ final CompletableFuture<Acknowledge> ack =
eventSender.apply(event, subtask);
Review comment:
Yes, I think it will work in practice. But @tillrohrmann is right, it is
unexpected, it goes against how things are done in the scheduler. So let's
catch that situation, because there is a chance that when this comes from a
different thread, it is not intentional, and the check can help us debug this
faster.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
