Github user srowen commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16252#discussion_r92472087
--- Diff:
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/storage/memory/MemoryStore.scala ---
@@ -694,7 +694,7 @@ private[storage] class PartiallyUnrolledIterator[T](
}
override def next(): T = {
- if (unrolled == null) {
+ if (unrolled == null || !unrolled.hasNext) {
--- End diff --
I'm not against the final state here without `!unrolled.hasNext`, because
indeed callers should really check `hasNext` and if they don't it should be
considered a bug. Do we think we got all the call sites for this though?
The thing that concerns me is that `next` will actually do the wrong thing
if `hasNext` isn't called and `unrolled` has no elements. It will fail rather
than just fall back to `rest`. Scala says it's undefined in this case; Java
does not.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
