MartijnVisser commented on code in PR #28311:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/28311#discussion_r3355380095
##########
flink-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/test/checkpointing/SavepointITCase.java:
##########
@@ -321,11 +322,17 @@ void testStopWithSavepointFailsOverToSavepoint() throws
Throwable {
savepointDir.getAbsolutePath(),
SavepointFormatType.CANONICAL);
+ // The default scheduler surfaces
StopWithSavepointStoppingException as the direct
+ // cause, while the AdaptiveScheduler wraps it in a FlinkException
("Stop with savepoint
+ // operation could not be completed."). Search the whole cause
chain so both schedulers
+ // pass; the JUnit5 migration (FLINK-39124) narrowed this to the
direct cause, which
Review Comment:
> nit: do we need the reasoning for this change in the comment as well? AI
tend to add these reasoning while debugging but I feel it would just keep
making code comment heavy.
Good call-out, it's not needed here. I'll fix it
--
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]
