weiqingy commented on code in PR #860:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-agents/pull/860#discussion_r3541172768
##########
runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/agents/runtime/python/utils/PythonResourceAdapterImpl.java:
##########
@@ -200,6 +203,11 @@ public Object callMethod(Object obj, String methodName,
Map<String, Object> kwar
return interpreter.invoke(CALL_METHOD, obj, methodName, kwargs);
}
+ @Override
+ public void setMetricGroup(Object pythonResource, FlinkAgentsMetricGroup
metricGroup) {
+ interpreter.invoke(SET_METRIC_GROUP, pythonResource, metricGroup);
Review Comment:
Thanks, that makes sense. My earlier comment was focused on the
double-recording angle, but I agree there is a separate ownership question
around the effective metric scope.
My takeaway is that #860 currently fixes the forward propagation path into
the cross-language resource, but it does not settle whether a
resource/provider-derived metric scope should flow back to the action-level
token recorder. For example, if the Python resource wraps the forwarded group
with provider-specific dimensions, Java-side token recording after the call may
still use only the Java wrapper/action scope.
If we keep #860 scoped to forward propagation, it may be good to call this
out in the PR description or track it as a follow-up, so it is clear that the
return-path/effective-scope behavior is still unresolved. Does that match what
you had in mind?
--
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]
