carloea2 opened a new pull request, #8188: URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/pull/8188
### What changes were proposed in this PR? Clear hash and range partitioner batches immediately after they are emitted by `flush` or `flush_state`, matching the other Python partitioners. Before: a second control marker resent the same pending tuple. After: the first flush sends the tuple and marker, while the second sends only the marker. ### Any related issues, documentation, discussions? Closes #8187 ### How was this PR tested? The full partitioner suite was red before the source change with four failures and 31 passes. Only hash and range `flush` and `flush_state` failed. After the four-line fix, all tests pass. ```text python -c "import sys,pytest; sys.path[:0]=[r'<worktree>\amber\src\main\python',r'<checkout>\amber\src\main\python']; raise SystemExit(pytest.main([r'amber/src/test/python/core/architecture/sendsemantics/test_partitioners.py','-q','-p','no:cacheprovider']))" ``` Result: 35 tests passed. ```text ruff check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python ruff format --check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python ``` Ruff checked 213 files successfully. A direct production-class run confirmed both hash and range partitioners emit the tuple only on the first marker and only the marker on the second. ### Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? Generated-by: OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 -- 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]
