[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7520?focusedWorklogId=332132&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-332132 ]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-7520: ---------------------------------------- Author: ASF GitHub Bot Created on: 22/Oct/19 18:18 Start Date: 22/Oct/19 18:18 Worklog Time Spent: 10m Work Description: kennknowles commented on issue #9190: [BEAM-7520] Fix timer firing order in DirectRunner URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9190#issuecomment-545089710 My reading of the commit history is that there are many commits which are not meaningful by themselves. There may be some commits that stand alone. But I will squash these commits when I merge unless you would like to do your own custom squashing into some meaningful small set of commits. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org Issue Time Tracking ------------------- Worklog Id: (was: 332132) Time Spent: 18h 10m (was: 18h) > DirectRunner timers are not strictly time ordered > ------------------------------------------------- > > Key: BEAM-7520 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7520 > Project: Beam > Issue Type: Bug > Components: runner-direct > Affects Versions: 2.13.0 > Reporter: Jan Lukavský > Assignee: Jan Lukavský > Priority: Major > Time Spent: 18h 10m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > > Let's suppose we have the following situation: > - statful ParDo with two timers - timerA and timerB > - timerA is set for window.maxTimestamp() + 1 > - timerB is set anywhere between <windowStart, windowEnd), let's denote that > timerB.timestamp > - input watermark moves to BoundedWindow.TIMESTAMP_MAX_VALUE > Then the order of timers is as follows (correct): > - timerB > - timerA > But, if timerB sets another timer (say for timerB.timestamp + 1), then the > order of timers will be: > - timerB (timerB.timestamp) > - timerA (BoundedWindow.TIMESTAMP_MAX_VALUE) > - timerB (timerB.timestamp + 1) > Which is not ordered by timestamp. The reason for this is that when the input > watermark update is evaluated, the WatermarkManager,extractFiredTimers() will > produce both timerA and timerB. That would be correct, but when timerB sets > another timer, that breaks this. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)