This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fix
MultiWriterIdGenerator.current_position
. #8257Fix
MultiWriterIdGenerator.current_position
. #8257Changes from 2 commits
1e3a051
fe7c70d
17cb148
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm unsure if it is clearer, but I think something like:
But that might make the handling later on harder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Potentially, but then you iterate over the list twice (since you're doing a
min(...)
)? You could write this as:or something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do not expect
new_cur
to ever be 0, correct?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do not, though probably clearer to put
is None
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this essentially discarding all finished IDs that are less than the minimum unfinished ID? I'm guessing we can't discard in a loop (which would be clearer to me) because Python doesn't like you modifying things as you iterate them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This all feels like it is doing a lot more work than before, but I guess both the old code and new are essentially iterating
_unfinished_ids
once (although this also builds a second set).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, basically we want to remove all items that are less than minimum unfinished ID. We could rewrite it to be a sorted list instead and then chop off the front of it, but its not obvious that that is better/quicker/easier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm struggling to see how this is directly related to this PR? The change looks fine though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sigh, sorry, that is a somewhat unrelated fix that broke that particular sytest. Basically, if the first time a worker see's an ID go past it is out of order, you can get here without anything having been added to current positions, causing this to explode.