Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075
---
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 enab
Github user s1ck commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136658385
Ok, thank you.
---
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
en
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136655355
No problem @s1ck. It might be a bit redundant but it tests that the
forwarding is done correctly. Therefore, I fixed the test case.
---
If your project is set up f
Github user s1ck commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136654131
Sorry, I did not see that there are also identical test cases in Scala
which now fail due to the `-1` change. As those scala methods wrap the Java
methods, is it necessary
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136640020
@s1ck, looks really good. Thanks for your contribution. Will merge it now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply app
Github user s1ck commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136633442
@tillrohrmann of course you are right, I thought wrong about it. it's
committed
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appea
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136619441
@s1ck, it's important to note that `1` will be subtracted from
`getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks()` and not `getBitSize()`. The
reason is that we hav
Github user HuangWHWHW commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136545997
Ah, thank you for the proof.
And didn`t see the log2 in detail before, sorry.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
repl
Github user s1ck commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136445029
@tillrohrmann I did not include the `shifter =
getBitSize(getRuntimeContext().getNumberOfParallelSubtasks() - 1)` as your hint
only applies for power of 2 values. E.g., `ge
Github user s1ck commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136431165
@StephanEwen thx for the hint. works fine! Will cleanup and commit now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitH
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136427373
There is an issue that tracks the `ConcurrentModificationException`problem.
As per discussion in that issue, can you use a `BroadcastVariableInitializer`?
Safes redu
Github user s1ck commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136426216
@tillrohrmann While writing the new tests for both methods, I encountered
that `zipWithIndex` is broken, too. It sometimes throws
`ConcurrentModificationException`. This is
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136386406
@s1ck, the `testZipWithUniqueId` test is bogus. You can remove this test
case an replace it with your described test. It would also be great if you
could set the pa
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136382814
@s1ck Good idea. You can also call `collect()`, add the IDs to a set and
make sure the set has the right cardinality. In general, avoiding temp files
and Strings for
Github user s1ck commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136380943
There is already a test case for zipWithUniqueId() in
https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/test/util/DataSetUtilsITCase.jav
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136352327
+1 for a test, otherwise this looks good!
---
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 pro
Github user StephanEwen commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#discussion_r38305177
--- Diff:
flink-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/utils/DataSetUtils.java ---
@@ -121,6 +122,7 @@ public void mapPartition(Iterable values,
Co
Github user HuangWHWHW commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136245681
@rmetzger +1. I think add a test is helpful.
Otherwise can you give us a infomation that prove the 'id = (counter <<
shifter) + taskId; ' will never generate the
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075#issuecomment-136129581
Thanks a lot for the contribution.
Can you add a test case for the method to make sure the issue is not
re-introduced again when somebody else is changing the code?
GitHub user s1ck opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1075
[FLINK-2590] fixing DataSetUtils.zipWithUniqueId()
* modified algorithm as explained in the issue
* updated method documentation
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
20 matches
Mail list logo
