-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 140
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor: Getting rid of (un)assigningCb #507
Conversation
34db1aa
to
d4ab844
Compare
d4ab844
to
a23ad95
Compare
ac153a3
to
547f190
Compare
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.
Build 371 of commit 547f190 has completed with FAILURE
547f190
to
f2eb61b
Compare
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.
Build 374 of commit f2eb61b has completed with FAILURE
// Set the queue as assigning (no longer pending unassignment) | ||
|
||
UriToQueueInfoMapCIter qcit = domIt->second->queuesInfo().find(uri); | ||
if (qcit != domIt->second->queuesInfo().cend()) { |
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 approach doesn't actually work. Assignment is a different story than unassignment. During first pending assignment, the queue does not exist in ClusterState
yet, so qcit
won't find anything, and thus won't set anything to k_ASSIGNING
.
Lemma: If the queue exists in ClusterState
, then it is never in k_ASSIGNING
state.
Therefore, we need a separate collection to keep track of k_ASSIGNING
queues, and once assignment at ClusterState
completes, we need to remove the corresponding entry.
01135f3
to
ea72c8e
Compare
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.
Build 387 of commit ea72c8e has completed with FAILURE
Some notes for myself
Places where
|
Reviewing, should be done by Dev 5 |
Progress update: I have refrained from posting my review, in case my perception on queue unassignment aspects changes after I review queue assignment flow. |
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.
Review done. Thanks for the hard work! This part of the code is not easy to navigate.
Signed-off-by: dorjesinpo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: dorjesinpo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: dorjesinpo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: dorjesinpo <[email protected]>
5be8dc8
to
263600c
Compare
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.
Build 404 of commit 263600c has completed with FAILURE
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.
lgtm
One more step converging CSL/non-CSL