Savonitar opened a new pull request, #28709:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/28709
<!--
*Thank you very much for contributing to Apache Flink - we are happy that
you want to help us improve Flink. 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.*
*Please understand that we do not do this to make contributions to Flink a
hassle. In order to uphold a high standard of quality for code contributions,
while at the same time managing a large number of contributions, we need
contributors to prepare the contributions well, and give reviewers enough
contextual information for the review. Please also understand that
contributions that do not follow this guide will take longer to review and thus
typically be picked up with lower priority by the community.*
## 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 set up Azure Pipelines CI to do that following [this
guide](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Azure+Pipelines#AzurePipelines-Tutorial:SettingupAzurePipelinesforaforkoftheFlinkrepository).
- 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 first incremental RocksDB checkpoint taken after a CLAIM-mode restore
from a NATIVE savepoint reuses the savepoint's SST files. The savepoint writes
those files as RelativeFileStateHandles, which are carried into the new
checkpoint's shared state. The metadata serializer records only their relative
path, and on restore they are re-anchored to the new checkpoint's exclusive
directory. The referenced state file is therefore looked up under
<checkpointDir>/ while the bytes still live in <savepointDir>/, so restoring
from that checkpoint fails with a missing-file error.
The fix pushes the exclusive directory of the checkpoint being written into
metadata serialization and decides, per state handle, whether the compact
relative encoding is still safe: a relative handle whose file actually lives in
that directory keeps it (so savepoints stay relocatable), and a foreign one (a
reused savepoint SST) is persisted with its absolute path using the
pre-existing FileStateHandle encoding.
## Brief change log
- Metadata serialization now knows the exclusive directory of the checkpoint
being written: CheckpointMetadataOutputStream#getExclusiveCheckpointDir() (new,
default null, overridden by FsCheckpointMetadataOutputStream) is used through a
new Checkpoints.storeCheckpointMetadata(CheckpointMetadata,
CheckpointMetadataOutputStream) overload, which
PendingCheckpoint#finalizeCheckpoint picks up without a call-site change.
- MetadataV2V3SerializerBase#canKeepRelativeEncoding(...) decides per
handle: a RelativeFileStateHandle whose file lives in that directory keeps the
compact relative encoding a foreign one (a reused savepoint SST) is written
with its absolute path via the pre-existing FileStateHandle encoding.
- Separate one-line [hotfix][tests] commit: SavepointDeepCopyTest had
compared savepoint1's file listing with itself (which is incorrect) and it now
reads savepoint2's directory.
## Verifying this change
- Serializer level: MetadataV2V3SerializerBaseTest (foreign relative handles
round-trip as absolute, own handles stay relative and relocatable, null
directory keeps the legacy encoding byte-for-byte) and
MetadataSerializerEntryPointsTest (both entry points across all metadata
versions).
- End to end: ResumeCheckpointAfterClaimedNativeSavepointITCase on a real
MiniCluster -> stop-with-savepoint (NATIVE) → CLAIM restore → first incremental
checkpoint (asserting reused savepoint files are referenced by absolute
location) → restore from that checkpoint. Plus the backend-level reproducer
RocksDBClaimSavepointThenCheckpointRestoreTest.
- State Processor API guard: SavepointOutputFormatSelfContainedTest and
SavepointDeepCopyTest (source savepoint deleted before restoring from the copy)
prove deep-copied savepoints keep no references into the source.
## 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 changed class annotated with
`@Public(Evolving)`: (no)
- The serializers: yes (the checkpoint metadata serializer's write-side
encoding decision changed, the wire format and metadata version are unchanged,
foreign relative handles now use the pre-existing absolute FileStateHandle
encoding, so the read side and older readers are unaffected)
- The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
- Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its
components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: yes (that is the point
of the change: the first incremental checkpoint taken after a CLAIM-mode
restore from a NATIVE savepoint becomes restorable)
- The S3 file system connector: no
## Documentation
- Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
- If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)
---
##### Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
<!--
If generative AI tooling has been used in the process of authoring this PR,
please
change the checkbox below to `[X]` followed by the name of the tool, and
uncomment the
"Generated-by" line. See the ASF Generative Tooling Guidance for details:
https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
You are responsible for the quality and correctness of every change in this
PR
regardless of the tooling used. Low-effort AI-generated PRs will be closed.
See
AGENTS.md for the full guidance.
-->
- [ ] Yes (please specify the tool below)
<!--
Generated-by: [Tool Name and Version]
-->
--
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]
