Github user dianfu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
Sure. Have created FLINK-7496 to track this issue.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user dawidwys commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
merging this.
@dianfu could you create a JIRA for the `Optional` after `greedy` to track
interest in that case.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user dawidwys commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
+1, LGTM
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Github user dianfu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
@dawidwys Any comments?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
Github user dawidwys commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
There is also one more problem. When we have optional after `greedy` it
does not work well. E.g. have a look at this test case:
@Test
public void
Github user dianfu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
@dawidwys Regarding to the times().greedy(), the result is not expected and
have fixed the issue in the latest PR. Also updated the doc.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user dawidwys commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
I think we are getting close to the final version. Good job! Still though
have two higher level comments:
- is current times().greedy() behaviour intended? For pattern `a{2, 5} b`
and
Github user dianfu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
@dawidwys Thanks a lot for the review. I have updated the patch. Currently,
there is something wrong when the greedy state is followed by an optional
state. This can be covered by test case
Github user dawidwys commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
I've started reviewing it, but realised it is working as I expected only in
case where the inner consuming strategy is `STRICT`.
Let's have a look at test like this one:
@Test
Github user dianfu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
@dawidwys OK. Have a good time. :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user dawidwys commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
@dianfu Sorry for the delay, but unfortunately I will not have enough time
for a proper review before my vacation. I will get back to it after 24.07.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user dianfu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4296
@dawidwys Could you help to take a look at this PR? Thanks a lot in advance.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
12 matches
Mail list logo
