pnowojski commented on a change in pull request #18024:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/18024#discussion_r764757883
##########
File path:
flink-clients/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/client/cli/CliFrontendParser.java
##########
@@ -129,6 +132,16 @@
+ "You need to allow this if you removed an
operator from your "
+ "program that was part of the program when the
savepoint was triggered.");
+ public static final Option SAVEPOINT_RESTORE_MODE =
+ new Option(
+ "r",
+ "restoreMode",
+ true,
+ "Defines how should we restore from the given savepoint.
Supported options: "
+ + "[claim - claim ownership of the savepoint and
delete once it is"
+ + " subsumed, no-claim (default) - do not assume
ownership of the"
Review comment:
nit: legacy
##########
File path:
flink-clients/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/client/cli/CliFrontendRunTest.java
##########
@@ -130,6 +131,46 @@ public void testRun() throws Exception {
}
}
+ @Test
+ public void testClaimRestoreModeParsing() throws Exception {
+ // test configure savepoint with claim mode
+ String[] parameters = {
+ "-s", "expectedSavepointPath", "-n", "-r", "claim",
getTestJarPath()
Review comment:
```
-s expectedSavepointPath -n -r claim
-s expectedSavepointPath -n -r no-claim
```
? Is this our convention? `-r` It's really cryptic and hard to
remember/understand. Isn't this better:
```
-s expectedSavepointPath -n -claim
-s expectedSavepointPath -n -no-claim
```
or
```
-s expectedSavepointPath -n -restore-mode claim
-s expectedSavepointPath -n -restore-mode no-claim
```
?
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
