Skip to content

Conversation

@drcrallen
Copy link
Contributor

The offer acceptance workflow is a little hard to follow and not very extensible for future considerations for offers. This is a patch that makes the workflow a little more explicit in its handling of offer resources.

@rxin
Copy link
Contributor

rxin commented Jun 16, 2016

Thanks for the pull request, but the refactoring seems to have made it more difficult to read?

@drcrallen
Copy link
Contributor Author

I broke something in the test suite, evaluating and I'll open this back in a bit

@drcrallen drcrallen closed this Jun 17, 2016
@drcrallen drcrallen reopened this Jun 17, 2016
def calculateUsableResources(sc: SparkContext, availableCpus: Int, availableMem: Int):
Option[(Int, Int)] = {
val desiredMemory = executorMemory(sc)
val desiredCpu = executorCores(availableCpus)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the idea, but it does make it harder to read. Can we refactor so we can collapse global and resource limits, and introduce like a case class for each condition, where it knows how to verify and logs error message when it doesn't match?
I think it makes adding and understanding how offers are matched better.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can do that. Will be a few weeks before I can tackle this again though.

@tnachen
Copy link
Contributor

tnachen commented Jun 22, 2016

ok to test

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jun 22, 2016

Test build #60997 has finished for PR 13715 at commit 9e0aedf.

  • This patch fails Spark unit tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

(ping @drcrallen)

@asfgit asfgit closed this in ed338f7 Feb 17, 2017
zifeif2 pushed a commit to zifeif2/spark that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2025
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to close stale PRs.

What I mean by "stale" here includes that there are some review comments by reviewers but the author looks inactive without any answer to them more than a month.

I left some comments roughly a week ago to ping and the author looks still inactive in these PR below

These below includes some PR suggested to be closed and a PR against another branch which seems obviously inappropriate.

Given the comments in the last three PRs below, they are probably worth being taken over by anyone who is interested in it.

Closes apache#7963
Closes apache#8374
Closes apache#11192
Closes apache#11374
Closes apache#11692
Closes apache#12243
Closes apache#12583
Closes apache#12620
Closes apache#12675
Closes apache#12697
Closes apache#12800
Closes apache#13715
Closes apache#14266
Closes apache#15053
Closes apache#15159
Closes apache#15209
Closes apache#15264
Closes apache#15267
Closes apache#15871
Closes apache#15861
Closes apache#16319
Closes apache#16324
Closes apache#16890

Closes apache#12398
Closes apache#12933
Closes apache#14517

## How was this patch tested?

N/A

Author: hyukjinkwon <gurwls223@gmail.com>

Closes apache#16937 from HyukjinKwon/stale-prs-close.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants