Fix same params detection (re-merge after split of PR#59) #78
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ingOnNode() : log on which node we have a hit
…ingOnNode() : log the itemParams we compare to too
…check fail (some or all actual params not hit by filter)
…ingOnNode() : log the params arrays before and after doFilter()ing
…o paramsToCompare for readability
…ingOnNode() : only filter executingUnitParams `if paramsToCompare.size() > 0` (do same as done for itemParams and avoid extra variable copying)
…ingOnNode() : refactor to fetch itemTaskName once
…ingOnNode() : refactor paramsToCompareSize to calculate it once
…UseForLimit by a comma, not just whitespace (which is not documented, but apparently nobody complained so used it instead)
…e setting in constructor and method
…d of same string in two places
…ToUseForLimit and paramsToCompare that are related to its usecase
…msToCompare() into a clean setter setParamsToCompare()
…d only setParamsToCompare()
… values (repetitive/surrounding separator chars)
…rseParamsToUseForLimit()
…se_paramsToUseForLimit() : honor the ordering of a List type
… testThrottleJob_constructor_should_parse_paramsToUseForLimit()
…uld_parse_paramsToUseForLimit() to look at truncation of whitespace/separators in input
… get) in testThrottleJob_constructor_should_parse_paramsToUseForLimit()
…ility and update some comments
…spam in FINE level
…ntil it is introduced
…ARATOR until it is introduced" This reverts commit 1219b1e since the token is introduced in this re-merged codebase.
…ARATOR until it is introduced" This reverts commit 1219b1e since the token is introduced in this re-merged codebase.
…plit as of 2020-02-26
|
I'm confused why this paramsToUseForLimit variable was splited by different char at line 228 and line 101 in file ThrottleJobProperty.java when this PR will be merged??? |
Contributor
Author
Member
|
Thanks for the reminder, I’ll try to process this in the next week or so. |
Contributor
Author
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@basil : To facilitate eventual merge of the fixes done in PR #59 into PRs #75, #76 and #77 this branch replays those three PRs with proper merge conflict resolution to achieve the same codebase state as in PR #59 at this time, both synced with upstream/master as of today.