[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17219845#comment-17219845
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-25207:
--------------------------------
Results for branch branch-2
[build #82 on
builds.a.o|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/82/]:
(/) *{color:green}+1 overall{color}*
----
details (if available):
(/) {color:green}+1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/82/General_20Nightly_20Build_20Report/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk8 hadoop2 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop2)
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/82/JDK8_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop2_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/82/JDK8_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop3_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk11 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk11
report|https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/branch-2/82/JDK11_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop3_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
(/) {color:green}+1 client integration test{color}
> Revisit the implementation and usage of RegionStates.include
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-25207
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25207
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Region Assignment
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha-1, 2.3.3, 2.4.0, 2.2.7
>
>
> After several round of refactoring and fixing, the method has been used in
> lots of places and the implementation looks really confusing.
> As in the first if condition for testing RegionStateNode and RegionInfo
> state, we will always return false when split is true, which means we will
> always filter out split parent, as a split parent, is split = true and also
> offline = true.
> I think the reason why there is no problem is that, only in
> EnableTableProcedure we call this method with offline = true, and
> EnableTableProcedure does not need to deal with split parent...
> And now since we found a problem in HBASE-25206, where we need to get split
> parent when deleting a table, I think it is time to revisit this method and
> make logic less confusing.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
