kevinrr888 commented on PR #5301: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/5301#issuecomment-2683361304
Changes: - Moved the resizing task from Fate.FatePoolsWatcher into FateExecutor. This cleaned up the code a bit getting rid of some getters in FateExecutor - When looking at the new MANAGER_FATE_<META/USER>_CONFIG props again realized the description I wrote wasn't correct. Updated - When tinkering with MANAGER_FATE_META_CONFIG and running the sunny day build realized that the config could be blank and still pass the sunny day build (meaning no FATE operations would be able to run for the Accumulo system tables). I assumed the sunny day build would catch something like this, but it doesn't appear that is the case. Perhaps we should create a sunny day test which tests fate operations on Accumulo system tables or maybe this would be caught in the full build and that is sufficient (I have not run the full build to see if that's true)... Regardless, this made me less confident in the correctness of my original attempt to write the META config (and looking at it again, I don't think it's correct). I changed the config to allow and expect all FateOperations, instead of trying to determine what subset would be allowed and expected for Accumulo system tables. - Minor changes to PropertyTypeTest testTypeFATE_<META/USER>_CONFIG to make the test easier to understand - Added new test to FatePoolsWatcherIT as described @keith-turner - Could you take a look at these changes? Most of the changes to Fate and FateExecutor were copy-paste so those can be ignored. Mostly curious what you think about the changes to Property and the new test. -- 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]
