[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16597345#comment-16597345
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-10254:
----------------------------------------
dawidwys edited a comment on issue #6632: [FLINK-10254][backend]Fix
inappropriate checkNotNull in stateBackend
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6632#issuecomment-417290047
What I meant is: Why have you decided current condition is an issue? Have
you came across any problems with the check as it is currently in master?
Before even analyzing a PR we should have a clear picture what is the reason
for a change to be able to properly prioritize an important changes from not so
much, but still requiring an effort of reviewing, verifying etc.
As far as I understand this is an isolated, internal component and a similar
check is done one layer upwards. That's why I would really like to understand
the reason for this PR.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on 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
> Fix inappropriate checkNotNull in stateBackend
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-10254
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10254
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: State Backends, Checkpointing
> Affects Versions: 1.6.0
> Reporter: aitozi
> Assignee: aitozi
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 1.6.0
>
>
> The checkNotNull is unnecessary of numberOfKeyGroups with a primitive type ,
> we just have to make sure it is bigger than 1.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
