[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16126156#comment-16126156 ]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7213: --------------------------------------- Github user StephanEwen commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4353#discussion_r133021771 --- Diff: flink-runtime/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinatorTest.java --- @@ -878,14 +873,17 @@ public void testSuccessfulCheckpointSubsumesUnsuccessful() { } long checkpointId2 = pending2.getCheckpointId(); - Map<OperatorID, OperatorState> operatorStates2 = pending2.getOperatorStates(); + TaskStateSnapshot taskOperatorSubtaskStates2_1 = spy(new TaskStateSnapshot()); --- End diff -- Same as above, spying necessary? > Introduce state management by OperatorID in TaskManager > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: FLINK-7213 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213 > Project: Flink > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: State Backends, Checkpointing > Affects Versions: 1.4.0 > Reporter: Stefan Richter > Assignee: Stefan Richter > > Flink-5892 introduced the job manager / checkpoint coordinator part of > managing state on the operator level instead of the task level by introducing > explicit operator_id -> state mappings. However, this explicit mapping was > not introduced in the task manager side, so the explicit mapping is still > converted into a mapping that suits the implicit operator chain order. > We should also introduce explicit operator ids to state management on the > task manager. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)