EdColeman commented on code in PR #2755:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2755#discussion_r902997562
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/fate/AdminUtil.java:
##########
@@ -390,17 +388,23 @@ 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 (includeByStatus(status, filterStatus) && includeByTxid(tid,
filterTxid)) {
Review Comment:
This line in the added test expects that no arguments prints all
```
ts.exec("fate -print", true, "txid:", true);
```
This line in the added test expects that no txid but a status return results
(on match):
```
ts.exec("fate -print -t IN_PROGRESS", true, "txid:", true);
```
The case of just a txid (success) is untested, but verified manually because
getting the txid was not straight forward.
I thought the discussion centered around the `includeByTxid &&
includeByStatus` and if that should be an or. The current behavior in this
code is that if you specify txid and a status. both must match. (and both take
a list)
--
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]
