keith-turner commented on code in PR #4229:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/4229#discussion_r1478954146
##########
test/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/test/functional/TabletManagementIteratorIT.java:
##########
@@ -177,6 +179,18 @@ public void test() throws AccumuloException,
AccumuloSecurityException, TableExi
assertEquals(1, findTabletsNeedingAttention(client, metaCopy2,
tabletMgmtParams),
"Only 1 of 2 tablets in table t1 should be returned");
+ // Test the recovery cases
+ createLogEntry(client, metaCopy5, t1);
+ setTabletAvailability(client, metaCopy5, t1,
TabletAvailability.UNHOSTED.name());
+ assertEquals(1, findTabletsNeedingAttention(client, metaCopy5,
tabletMgmtParams),
Review Comment:
This is an existing problem with this test. The test could do more than
just verify a count, it could verify the ManagementActions and extents returned
are what is expected. I can open an issue about this.
##########
server/manager/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/manager/TabletGroupWatcher.java:
##########
@@ -513,7 +518,8 @@ private TableMgmtStats
manageTablets(Iterator<TabletManagement> iter,
}
if (actions.contains(ManagementAction.NEEDS_SPLITTING)
- && !actions.contains(ManagementAction.NEEDS_VOLUME_REPLACEMENT)) {
+ && !actions.contains(ManagementAction.NEEDS_VOLUME_REPLACEMENT)
+ && !actions.contains(ManagementAction.NEEDS_RECOVERY)) {
Review Comment:
This is a preexisting pattern in the code, feel free to ignore this comment.
Wondering this the tablet mgmt iter could impelment this logic and not even
check for split and compact when a tablet need vol replace or recovery.
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
