pedromazala opened a new pull request, #29161:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/29161
The test asserted that the checkpoint it restores from carries in-flight
input channel state for the slow mapper, but selected that checkpoint by
waiting for the second completed checkpoint that persisted any in-flight data
anywhere in the job. Which subtask's buffers land in a given checkpoint depends
on where the barriers are when it is triggered, so the count was a calibration
rather than a condition: instrumenting the scan shows checkpoint 1 persists
~295 KB of in-flight data while carrying no input channel state for the mapper
at all, and only checkpoint 2 has it on this hardware.
Walk the completed checkpoint history instead and restore from the first
checkpoint whose metadata really contains file-merged input channel state for
the slow mapper. The lookup is bounded by a deadline and reports which
checkpoints it inspected, fails fast with the job's own failure cause if the
job terminates first, and skips checkpoints cleaned up while being read. The
SegmentFileStateHandle and state size checks stay hard assertions on the
selected checkpoint, so a file merging regression still fails loudly instead of
timing out.
Generated-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context)
<!--
*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
Reduce flakiness around `FileMergingChannelStateITCase`
## Brief change log
- Replace the checkpoint selection in testRestoreFileMergedChannelState:
instead of CommonTestUtils.waitForCheckpointWithInflightBuffers(...,
INITIAL_CHECKPOINTS_TO_WAIT), which accepts the latest completed checkpoint
that persisted any in-flight data anywhere in the job, the test now restores
from a checkpoint selected by content
- Add waitForCheckpointWithSlowMapperChannelState, which walks the completed
checkpoint history oldest-first and returns the first checkpoint whose metadata
actually carries file-merged input channel state for the slow-word-mapper
operator
- Bound that lookup with a deadline (CHECKPOINT_LOOKUP_TIMEOUT, polled every
CHECKPOINT_LOOKUP_INTERVAL_MS) and report the inspected checkpoint ids on
timeout, rather than looping until the surefire timeout kills the fork
- Fail fast with the job's own failure cause if the job reaches a globally
terminal state before such a checkpoint completes
- Skip checkpoints that are subsumed and cleaned up while their metadata is
being read, instead of failing the test on the resulting IOException
- Extract collectChannelStateDelegates (and the ChannelStateDelegates
holder) so the new predicate and assertFileMergedChannelState share one
traversal of the checkpoint metadata
- Keep the assertions themselves unchanged — all channel state delegates are
SegmentFileStateHandle, total state size is positive, and the slow mapper's
input channel state is non-empty — so a file merging regression still fails
loudly on the selected checkpoint instead of timing out
- Drop the now-unused INITIAL_CHECKPOINTS_TO_WAIT constant. Test-only change
confined to FileMergingChannelStateITCase; the 3-arg
waitForCheckpointWithInflightBuffers overload stays in use by
UnalignedCheckpointRescaleSameUpstreamITCase
## Verifying this change
The test was executed 20 times to ensure the flakiness was over.
This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.
## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
- Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
- The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with
`@Public(Evolving)`: no
- The serializers: no
- The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
- Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its
components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: no
- The S3 file system connector: no
## Documentation
- Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no
- If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs
/ not documented)
---
##### Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
<!--
If generative AI tooling has been used in the process of authoring this PR,
please
change the checkbox below to `[X]` and replace the placeholder in the
"Generated-by"
line with the tool name and version. Otherwise remove the "Generated-by"
line.
See the ASF Generative Tooling Guidance for details:
https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html
You are responsible for the quality and correctness of every change in this
PR
regardless of the tooling used. Low-effort AI-generated PRs will be closed.
See
AGENTS.md for the full guidance.
-->
- [x] Yes (please specify the tool below)
Generated-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context).
--
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]
