You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Below comments for explaining why blocks which need reconstruction may not block decommission/maintenance is weird:
// Even if the block is without sufficient redundancy,
// it might not block decommission/maintenance if it
// has sufficient redundancy.
if (dnAdmin.isSufficient(block, bc, num, isDecommission, isMaintenance)) {
if (pruneReliableBlocks) {
it.remove();
I checked the detailed code and get the reason that why blocks which need reconstruction may not block decommission/maintenance, and give it a better comment
How was this patch tested?
No need to test. Just changed some comments.
For code changes:
Does the title or this PR starts with the corresponding JIRA issue id (e.g. 'HADOOP-17799. Your PR title ...')?
Object storage: have the integration tests been executed and the endpoint declared according to the connector-specific documentation?
If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under ASF 2.0?
If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE, LICENSE-binary, NOTICE-binary files?
VicoWu
changed the title
clearer comments for why in some case blocks which needs reconstructi…
HDFS-17579 Better Comments Explaining Why Blocks Need Reconstruction May Not Block Decommission/Maintenance
Jul 12, 2024
The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
_ trunk Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
44m 55s
trunk passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 21s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
compile
1m 17s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
checkstyle
1m 10s
trunk passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
1m 24s
trunk passed
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 10s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 47s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
3m 16s
trunk passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
35m 49s
branch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
_ Patch Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
1m 13s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 14s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javac
1m 14s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 9s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
javac
1m 9s
the patch passed
+1 💚
blanks
0m 0s
The patch has no blanks issues.
+1 💚
checkstyle
0m 57s
the patch passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
1m 14s
the patch passed
+1 💚
javadoc
0m 55s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 40s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
3m 18s
the patch passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
35m 50s
patch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
_ trunk Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
44m 55s
trunk passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 23s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
compile
1m 16s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
checkstyle
1m 10s
trunk passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
1m 24s
trunk passed
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 8s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 45s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
3m 16s
trunk passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
36m 32s
branch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
_ Patch Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
1m 15s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 13s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javac
1m 13s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 8s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
javac
1m 8s
the patch passed
+1 💚
blanks
0m 0s
The patch has no blanks issues.
+1 💚
checkstyle
0m 57s
the patch passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
1m 16s
the patch passed
+1 💚
javadoc
0m 54s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 37s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
3m 16s
the patch passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
35m 53s
patch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
_ trunk Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
44m 9s
trunk passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 23s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
compile
1m 17s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
checkstyle
1m 11s
trunk passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
1m 26s
trunk passed
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 10s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 48s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
3m 21s
trunk passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
36m 2s
branch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
_ Patch Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
1m 10s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 13s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javac
1m 13s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
1m 8s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
javac
1m 8s
the patch passed
+1 💚
blanks
0m 0s
The patch has no blanks issues.
+1 💚
checkstyle
0m 57s
the patch passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
1m 13s
the patch passed
+1 💚
javadoc
0m 54s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 43s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
3m 14s
the patch passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
35m 38s
patch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
_ trunk Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
32m 29s
trunk passed
+1 💚
compile
0m 42s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
compile
0m 40s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
checkstyle
0m 41s
trunk passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
0m 45s
trunk passed
+1 💚
javadoc
0m 44s
trunk passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 8s
trunk passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
1m 44s
trunk passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
21m 11s
branch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
_ Patch Compile Tests _
+1 💚
mvninstall
0m 36s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
0m 38s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javac
0m 38s
the patch passed
+1 💚
compile
0m 33s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
javac
0m 33s
the patch passed
+1 💚
blanks
0m 0s
The patch has no blanks issues.
+1 💚
checkstyle
0m 30s
the patch passed
+1 💚
mvnsite
0m 36s
the patch passed
+1 💚
javadoc
0m 31s
the patch passed with JDK Ubuntu-11.0.23+9-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu120.04.2
+1 💚
javadoc
1m 2s
the patch passed with JDK Private Build-1.8.0_412-8u412-ga-1~20.04.1-b08
+1 💚
spotbugs
1m 45s
the patch passed
+1 💚
shadedclient
20m 51s
patch has no errors when building and testing our client artifacts.
We're closing this stale PR because it has been open for 100 days with no activity. This isn't a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It's just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable.
If you feel like this was a mistake, or you would like to continue working on it, please feel free to re-open it and ask for a committer to remove the stale tag and review again.
Thanks all for your contribution.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
Below comments for explaining why blocks which need reconstruction may not block decommission/maintenance is weird:
I checked the detailed code and get the reason that why blocks which need reconstruction may not block decommission/maintenance, and give it a better comment
How was this patch tested?
No need to test. Just changed some comments.
For code changes:
LICENSE,LICENSE-binary,NOTICE-binaryfiles?