[SPARK-54441][INFRA][FOLLOW-UP] Enforce new forked process to create its own coverage object#53408
Closed
gaogaotiantian wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Closed
[SPARK-54441][INFRA][FOLLOW-UP] Enforce new forked process to create its own coverage object#53408gaogaotiantian wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
gaogaotiantian wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Dec 9, 2025
HyukjinKwon
changed the title
Member
|
Merged to master. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Enforce the forked worker process to have it's own coverage object. This is used by the after fork hook for
coveragepyitself.Why are the changes needed?
It seems like some coverage data of workers was not properly recorded. Might be a racing issue. I applied this patch and confirmed that the worker coverage is properly recorded. We should see a better coverage on worker side.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Locally confirmed the new coverage.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No