Dennis-Mircea opened a new pull request, #1070:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/1070
<!--
*Thank you very much for contributing to the Apache Flink Kubernetes
Operator - we are happy that you want to help us improve the project. To help
the community review your contribution in the best possible way, please go
through the checklist below, which will get the contribution into a shape in
which it can be best reviewed.*
## Contribution Checklist
- Make sure that the pull request corresponds to a [JIRA
issue](https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/FLINK/issues). Exceptions are
made for typos in JavaDoc or documentation files, which need no JIRA issue.
- Name the pull request in the form "[FLINK-XXXX] [component] Title of the
pull request", where *FLINK-XXXX* should be replaced by the actual issue
number. Skip *component* if you are unsure about which is the best component.
Typo fixes that have no associated JIRA issue should be named following
this pattern: `[hotfix][docs] Fix typo in event time introduction` or
`[hotfix][javadocs] Expand JavaDoc for PuncuatedWatermarkGenerator`.
- Fill out the template below to describe the changes contributed by the
pull request. That will give reviewers the context they need to do the review.
- Make sure that the change passes the automated tests, i.e., `mvn clean
verify` passes. You can read more on how we use GitHub Actions for CI
[here](https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-kubernetes-operator-docs-main/docs/development/guide/#cicd).
- Each pull request should address only one issue, not mix up code from
multiple issues.
- Each commit in the pull request has a meaningful commit message
(including the JIRA id)
- Once all items of the checklist are addressed, remove the above text and
this checklist, leaving only the filled out template below.
**(The sections below can be removed for hotfixes of typos)**
-->
## What is the purpose of the change
The `@Deprecated` annotation on `TARGET_UTILIZATION_BOUNDARY` was introduced
as part of [FLINK-36836](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-36836) /
[#921](https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/921), which
added the more fine-grained `job.autoscaler.utilization.max` and
`job.autoscaler.utilization.min` options.
However, the `job.autoscaler.target.utilization.boundary` property is still
actively used within the autoscaler's evaluation phase when computing
`SCALE_UP_RATE_THRESHOLD` and `SCALE_DOWN_RATE_THRESHOLD` in
`ScalingMetricEvaluator#computeProcessingRateThresholds`. Since
`utilization.max` and `utilization.min` do not have default values, the
boundary property is used by default to derive the upper (`targetUtilization +
boundary`) and lower
(`targetUtilization - boundary`) utilization thresholds. Therefore, it does
not make sense to mark it as deprecated, as doing so causes
`ConfigOptionsDocGenerator` to exclude it from the generated configuration
page, even though it remains the default mechanism for controlling the scaling
thresholds and is referenced in the Autoscaler documentation.
This PR:
- Removes the `@Deprecated` annotation from `TARGET_UTILIZATION_BOUNDARY` in
`AutoScalerOptions`
- Updates the Autoscaler documentation page (`autoscaler.md`) to reflect the
relationship between the boundary property and the `utilization.max` /
`utilization.min` options introduced in
[FLINK-36836](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-36836)
## Brief change log
- *[flink-autoscaler]* - Removed `@Deprecated` annotation from
`TARGET_UTILIZATION_BOUNDARY` in `AutoScalerOptions.java`
- *[docs]* - Updated "Target utilization and flexible boundaries" section in
`autoscaler.md` (and its `content.zh` counterpart) to document the interplay
between the boundary property and the `utilization.max` / `utilization.min`
overrides
## Verifying this change
This change does not alter runtime behavior. The `@Deprecated` annotation
was only affecting documentation generation. The property was already
validated, tested, and used as before.
Existing tests in `ScalingExecutorTest` (e.g. `testUtilizationBoundary`)
already cover the interaction between `TARGET_UTILIZATION_BOUNDARY`,
`UTILIZATION_MAX`, and `UTILIZATION_MIN`.
## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
- Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
- The public API, i.e., is any changes to the `CustomResourceDescriptors`:
no
- Core observer or reconciler logic that is regularly executed: no
## Documentation
- Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no
- If yes, how is the feature documented? not applicable
--
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]
