chenqin opened a new pull request #15442:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/15442
<!--
*Thank you very much for contributing to Apache Flink - we are happy that
you want to help us improve Flink. To help the community review your
contribution in the best possible way, please go through the checklist below,
which will get the contribution into a shape in which it can be best reviewed.*
*Please understand that we do not do this to make contributions to Flink a
hassle. In order to uphold a high standard of quality for code contributions,
while at the same time managing a large number of contributions, we need
contributors to prepare the contributions well, and give reviewers enough
contextual information for the review. Please also understand that
contributions that do not follow this guide will take longer to review and thus
typically be picked up with lower priority by the community.*
## Contribution Checklist
- Make sure that the pull request corresponds to a [JIRA
issue](https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/FLINK/issues). Exceptions are
made for typos in JavaDoc or documentation files, which need no JIRA issue.
- Name the pull request in the form "[FLINK-XXXX] [component] Title of the
pull request", where *FLINK-XXXX* should be replaced by the actual issue
number. Skip *component* if you are unsure about which is the best component.
Typo fixes that have no associated JIRA issue should be named following
this pattern: `[hotfix] [docs] Fix typo in event time introduction` or
`[hotfix] [javadocs] Expand JavaDoc for PuncuatedWatermarkGenerator`.
- Fill out the template below to describe the changes contributed by the
pull request. That will give reviewers the context they need to do the review.
- Make sure that the change passes the automated tests, i.e., `mvn clean
verify` passes. You can set up Azure Pipelines CI to do that following [this
guide](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Azure+Pipelines#AzurePipelines-Tutorial:SettingupAzurePipelinesforaforkoftheFlinkrepository).
- Each pull request should address only one issue, not mix up code from
multiple issues.
- Each commit in the pull request has a meaningful commit message
(including the JIRA id)
- Once all items of the checklist are addressed, remove the above text and
this checklist, leaving only the filled out template below.
**(The sections below can be removed for hotfixes of typos)**
-->
## What is the purpose of the change
entropy injection suppose to filter entropy marker in plug able s3
filesystem, instead, job manager incorrectly view s3 filesystem as non entropy
fs because of nested file system types difference from task manager.
The goal of this fix is to accommodate both job manager as well as task
manager on entropy marker parsing with pluggable filesystem ans make metadata
path consistent with 1.9 and earlier.
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/Flink-job-cannot-find-recover-path-after-using-entropy-injection-for-s3-file-systems-tp49527p49656.html
## Brief change log
refactor EntropyInjectingFileSystem getEntropyFs if else logic able to
handle pluggable filesystem.
adding test coverage on job manager entropy marker handling
## Verifying this change
run test job on yarn cluster, verify job manager generate checkpoint path
without entropy marker
*(Please pick either of the following options)*
This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.
*(or)*
This change is already covered by existing tests, such as *(please describe
tests)*.
*(or)*
This change added tests and can be verified as follows:
*(example:)*
- *Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads
(100MB)*
- *Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager)
failure*
- *Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once across
recoveries*
- *Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2
JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and killing one
JobManager and two TaskManagers during the execution, verifying that recovery
happens correctly.*
## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
this is backward compatible change, adding handling to checkpoint path not
covered previously.
## Documentation
- Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
- If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs
/ not documented)
--
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:
us...@infra.apache.org
