somandal commented on code in PR #11578:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/11578#discussion_r1375132678
##########
pinot-controller/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/controller/helix/core/assignment/instance/InstanceAssignmentDriver.java:
##########
@@ -60,19 +60,31 @@ public InstancePartitions
assignInstances(InstancePartitionsType instancePartiti
InstanceAssignmentConfigUtils.getInstanceAssignmentConfig(_tableConfig,
instancePartitionsType);
return getInstancePartitions(
instancePartitionsType.getInstancePartitionsName(TableNameBuilder.extractRawTableName(tableNameWithType)),
- assignmentConfig, instanceConfigs, existingInstancePartitions);
+ assignmentConfig, instanceConfigs, existingInstancePartitions, null);
+ }
+
+ public InstancePartitions assignInstances(InstancePartitionsType
instancePartitionsType,
Review Comment:
nit: can the existing `assignInstances(InstancePartitionsType
instancePartitionsType,
List<InstanceConfig> instanceConfigs, @Nullable InstancePartitions
existingInstancePartitions)` call this function since the remaining setup is
the same? just to avoid too much code duplication
##########
pinot-controller/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/controller/api/resources/PinotTenantRestletResource.java:
##########
@@ -286,6 +290,81 @@ public String getTablesOnTenant(
}
}
+ @GET
+ @Path("/tenants/{tenantName}/instancePartitions")
Review Comment:
Is my understanding correct that for tables that don't move, they'll follow
the older assignment strategy?
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
