narendly commented on a change in pull request #741: Fix ConcurrentModification
exception in Workflow Garbage Collection
URL: https://github.com/apache/helix/pull/741#discussion_r377423574
##########
File path: helix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/helix/task/TaskUtil.java
##########
@@ -1043,23 +1043,33 @@ public static void purgeExpiredJobs(String workflow,
WorkflowConfig workflowConf
* @param dataProvider
* @param manager
*/
- public static void workflowGarbageCollection(WorkflowControllerDataProvider
dataProvider,
+ public static void workflowGarbageCollection(final
WorkflowControllerDataProvider dataProvider,
final HelixManager manager) {
// Garbage collections for conditions where workflow context exists but
config is missing.
- Map<String, ZNRecord> contexts = dataProvider.getContexts();
- HelixDataAccessor accessor = manager.getHelixDataAccessor();
- HelixPropertyStore<ZNRecord> propertyStore =
manager.getHelixPropertyStore();
+ // toBeDeletedWorkflows is a set that contains the name of the workflows
that their contexts
+ // should be deleted.
Set<String> toBeDeletedWorkflows = new HashSet<>();
- for (Map.Entry<String, ZNRecord> entry : contexts.entrySet()) {
- if (entry.getValue() != null
- && entry.getValue().getId().equals(TaskUtil.WORKFLOW_CONTEXT_KW)) {
- if (dataProvider.getWorkflowConfig(entry.getKey()) == null) {
- toBeDeletedWorkflows.add(entry.getKey());
+ try {
+ Set<String> existingWorkflowContexts = new
HashSet<>(dataProvider.getContexts().keySet());
+ for (String entry : existingWorkflowContexts) {
+ if (entry != null) {
+ WorkflowConfig cfg = dataProvider.getWorkflowConfig(entry);
+ WorkflowContext ctx = dataProvider.getWorkflowContext(entry);
+ if (ctx != null && ctx.getId().equals(TaskUtil.WORKFLOW_CONTEXT_KW)
&& cfg == null) {
+ toBeDeletedWorkflows.add(entry);
+ }
}
}
+ } catch (Exception e) {
+ LOG.warn(
+ "Exception occurred while creating a list of all existing contexts
with missing config!",
+ e);
}
Review comment:
Do you clearly understand why and where ConcurrentModificationException is
happening? This looks like we're just masking it with a try-catch. I don't
think that's a fix. Could we identify why and where clearly first and could you
please update the description with your findings? Then this try-catch shouldn't
be necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
With regards,
Apache Git Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
