EdColeman commented on code in PR #2755:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2755#discussion_r890185929
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/fate/AdminUtil.java:
##########
@@ -390,11 +390,10 @@ private FateStatus getTransactionStatus(ReadOnlyTStore<T>
zs, Set<Long> filterTx
zs.unreserve(tid, 0);
- if ((filterTxid != null && !filterTxid.contains(tid))
- || (filterStatus != null && !filterStatus.contains(status)))
- continue;
-
- statuses.add(new TransactionStatus(tid, status, debug, hlocks, wlocks,
top, timeCreated));
+ if ((filterTxid == null) || filterTxid.contains(tid) || (filterStatus ==
null)
+ || filterStatus.contains(status)) {
+ statuses.add(new TransactionStatus(tid, status, debug, hlocks, wlocks,
top, timeCreated));
+ }
Review Comment:
For me, yes. Can you verify by adding the accumulo.properties where you
were testing / seeing the issue?
What I don't understand is why the filter seemed to change - needing the
properties for a test using fate print is understandable, but the same filter
code seems to be behavior seems to differ between the two branch and I don't
see why. That's why I set this to draft until the difference can be explained.
--
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]
