davidradl commented on code in PR #25792:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/25792#discussion_r1883693470
##########
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/asyncprocessing/operators/AbstractAsyncStateStreamOperator.java:
##########
@@ -368,10 +385,12 @@ protected void processWatermarkStatus(WatermarkStatus
watermarkStatus, int index
boolean wasIdle = combinedWatermark.isIdle();
// index is 0-based
if (combinedWatermark.updateStatus(index,
watermarkStatus.isIdle())) {
- super.processWatermark(
- new
Watermark(combinedWatermark.getCombinedWatermark()));
- }
- if (wasIdle != combinedWatermark.isIdle()) {
+ doProcessWatermark(
Review Comment:
Thanks @Zakelly
Yes your description of the logic makes sense.
you say the 2 `if` 's are independent, but the second `if `is in an `else`.
Shouldn't we remove the `else` so the `if`'s are independent?
the parent class does these if independently with no `else`
```
protected void processWatermarkStatus(WatermarkStatus watermarkStatus, int
index)
throws Exception {
boolean wasIdle = combinedWatermark.isIdle();
if (combinedWatermark.updateStatus(index, watermarkStatus.isIdle()))
{
processWatermark(new
Watermark(combinedWatermark.getCombinedWatermark()));
}
if (wasIdle != combinedWatermark.isIdle()) {
output.emitWatermarkStatus(watermarkStatus);
}
```
--
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]
