danny0405 commented on code in PR #9476:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/9476#discussion_r1301101571
##########
hudi-common/src/main/java/org/apache/hudi/common/table/timeline/HoodieActiveTimeline.java:
##########
@@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ private void transitionState(HoodieInstant fromInstant,
HoodieInstant toInstant,
protected void transitionState(HoodieInstant fromInstant, HoodieInstant
toInstant, Option<byte[]> data,
boolean allowRedundantTransitions) {
-
ValidationUtils.checkArgument(fromInstant.getTimestamp().equals(toInstant.getTimestamp()));
+
ValidationUtils.checkArgument(fromInstant.getTimestamp().equals(toInstant.getTimestamp()),
String.format("%s and %s are not consistent when transition state.",
fromInstant, toInstant));
Review Comment:
The validation may make sense but when the two instant timestamp could be
in-consistent?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@hudi.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
