Remove unused code from ByteBufVisitor #4383
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
shoothzj
approved these changes
May 22, 2024
|
It seems that this might be needed. Will add a test case after checking |
|
It's safe to remove the code. I guess I had added the code originally as a performance optimization, but it's not useful in the end. I'm marking this PR as ready to review. @shoothzj Please merge this and cherry-pick to branch-4.16 and branch-4.17. |
shoothzj
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
### Motivation ByteBufVisitor added in #4196 contains some code that isn't used and covered by unit tests. It's better to remove such code since it makes it harder to reason about the solution. The ByteBufVisitor solution will unwrap all direct buffers that can be unwrapped without the code that is to be removed. I believe that I forgot this code from some earlier phase of the solution where it was necessary to include this. I ran some local tests and didn't see that the code was used for the original purpose that it was added for (supporting read-only buffers). ### Changes Remove the unused code. (cherry picked from commit 84fd255)
shoothzj
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
### Motivation ByteBufVisitor added in #4196 contains some code that isn't used and covered by unit tests. It's better to remove such code since it makes it harder to reason about the solution. The ByteBufVisitor solution will unwrap all direct buffers that can be unwrapped without the code that is to be removed. I believe that I forgot this code from some earlier phase of the solution where it was necessary to include this. I ran some local tests and didn't see that the code was used for the original purpose that it was added for (supporting read-only buffers). ### Changes Remove the unused code. (cherry picked from commit 84fd255)
Ghatage
pushed a commit
to sijie/bookkeeper
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2024
### Motivation ByteBufVisitor added in apache#4196 contains some code that isn't used and covered by unit tests. It's better to remove such code since it makes it harder to reason about the solution. The ByteBufVisitor solution will unwrap all direct buffers that can be unwrapped without the code that is to be removed. I believe that I forgot this code from some earlier phase of the solution where it was necessary to include this. I ran some local tests and didn't see that the code was used for the original purpose that it was added for (supporting read-only buffers). ### Changes Remove the unused code.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Motivation
ByteBufVisitor added in #4196 contains some code that isn't used and covered by unit tests.
It's better to remove such code since it makes it harder to reason about the solution. The ByteBufVisitor solution will unwrap all direct buffers that can be unwrapped without the code that is to be removed. I believe that I forgot this code from some earlier phase of the solution where it was necessary to include this.
I ran some local tests and didn't see that the code was used for the original purpose that it was added for (supporting read-only buffers).
Changes
Remove the unused code.