pnowojski commented on code in PR #19723:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/19723#discussion_r876818823
##########
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/channel/ChannelStateWriteRequest.java:
##########
@@ -103,18 +104,21 @@ static ChannelStateWriteRequest buildFutureWriteRequest(
checkBufferIsBuffer(buffer);
bufferConsumer.accept(writer, buffer);
}
- } catch (Throwable e) {
+ } catch (ExecutionException e) {
writer.fail(e);
}
},
throwable -> {
- List<Buffer> buffers = dataFuture.get();
- if (buffers == null || buffers.isEmpty()) {
- return;
+ try {
+ List<Buffer> buffers = dataFuture.get();
+ if (buffers == null || buffers.isEmpty()) {
+ return;
+ }
+ CloseableIterator<Buffer> iterator =
+ CloseableIterator.fromList(buffers,
Buffer::recycleBuffer);
+ iterator.close();
+ } catch (ExecutionException ignored) {
Review Comment:
You shouldn't be modifying the code that you have added in the same pr in
another commit. As in our [coding style
guideline](https://flink.apache.org/contributing/code-style-and-quality-pull-requests.html#separate-refactoring-cleanup-and-independent-changes):
> There should be no cleanup commits that fix issues that have been
introduced in previous commits of the same PR. Commits should be clean in
themselves.
Why do you even need to handle exceptions here? The pre-existing
`buildWriteRequest()` does nothing like that.
--
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: issues-unsubscr...@flink.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
