Skip to content
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

fix gap detector to update status #427

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 25, 2024
Merged

fix gap detector to update status #427

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 25, 2024

Conversation

yuunlimm
Copy link
Contributor

processor status wasn't being updated.

###Test Plan
tested locally
Screenshot 2024-06-25 at 8 38 35 AM

@yuunlimm yuunlimm requested review from grao1991 and a team June 25, 2024 15:39
Comment on lines 52 to 53
let mut default_gap_detector = DefaultGapDetector::new(starting_version);
let mut parquet_gap_detector = ParquetFileGapDetector::new(starting_version);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also I missed this in the Parquet processor PR, but why do we need both of them here? Each processor only needs one gap detector right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah we just need one, maybe I can add a trait in processor to check isParquet, then just create a parquet gap detector. is it okay to address along with parquet feedbacks from dport?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could have create_gap_detector_status_tracker_loop take in a GapDetector and the processor choose which one to use.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or just create 2 separate loops.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah either one will be better creating both gap detectors. I think we can go with the former one, since we already have the enum

@yuunlimm yuunlimm requested a review from rtso June 25, 2024 17:22
@yuunlimm yuunlimm enabled auto-merge (squash) June 25, 2024 17:29
@yuunlimm yuunlimm merged commit e905538 into main Jun 25, 2024
7 checks passed
@yuunlimm yuunlimm deleted the yuunlimm/fix-gap-detector branch June 25, 2024 17:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants