LuciferYang edited a comment on pull request #33558:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/33558#issuecomment-888771778
> There is one other instance you could change in
AbstractCommandBuilder.getEffectiveConfig
The original method as follows:
```java
Map<String, String> getEffectiveConfig() throws IOException {
if (effectiveConfig == null) {
effectiveConfig = new HashMap<>(conf);
Properties p = loadPropertiesFile();
for (String key : p.stringPropertyNames()) {
if (!effectiveConfig.containsKey(key)) {
effectiveConfig.put(key, p.getProperty(key));
}
}
}
return effectiveConfig;
}
```
@srowen do you mean to refactor the
```java
for (String key : p.stringPropertyNames()) {
if (!effectiveConfig.containsKey(key)) {
effectiveConfig.put(key, p.getProperty(key));
}
}
```
to
```
p.stringPropertyNames().forEach(key -> effectiveConfig.putIfAbsent(key,
p.getProperty(key)));
```
or refactor to
```
p.stringPropertyNames().forEach(key -> effectiveConfig.computeIfAbsent(key,
p::getProperty));
```
Both can pass the test.
But the first will call `p.getProperty(key)` for each key, which is
different from the original logic.
And The second has the problem of ignoring the return value of
`computeIfAbsent` method.
Which way do you prefer or keep the original logic?
--
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: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
