Skip to content

Conversation

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

@vanzin vanzin commented Dec 16, 2015

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

could you use port directly here since rpcEnv doesn't use it in this case?

@zsxwing
Copy link
Member

zsxwing commented Dec 16, 2015

LGTM pending tests

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 17, 2015

Test build #47862 has finished for PR 10339 at commit 6911a2b.

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

@markhamstra
Copy link
Contributor

I don't know... it's longer than the one-liner I was told to expect. :)

@zsxwing
Copy link
Member

zsxwing commented Dec 17, 2015

retest this please

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor Author

vanzin commented Dec 17, 2015

it's longer than the one-liner

I deleted just one line!

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor Author

vanzin commented Dec 17, 2015

retest this please

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@markhamstra @vanzin we can make this a real oneliner if we use Option :)

val actorSystemPort = if (port == 0) 0 else Option(rpcEnv.address).map(_.port + 1).getOrElse(port)

not sure if that's easier or harder to read. Either way is fine.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's simpler: val actorSystemPort = if (port == 0 || rpcEnv.address == null) port else rpcEnv.address.port + 1

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 to @zsxwing

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still doesn't fit in one line, though. But it's simpler.

@andrewor14
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 17, 2015

Test build #47867 has finished for PR 10339 at commit e1e67af.

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

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor Author

vanzin commented Dec 17, 2015

flakiness? retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 17, 2015

Test build #47874 has finished for PR 10339 at commit e1e67af.

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

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 17, 2015

Test build #47872 has finished for PR 10339 at commit e1e67af.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@andrewor14
Copy link
Contributor

Merging into master 1.6 thanks!

@asfgit asfgit closed this in d1508dd Dec 17, 2015
asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2015
Author: Marcelo Vanzin <[email protected]>

Closes #10339 from vanzin/SPARK-12386.

(cherry picked from commit d1508dd)
Signed-off-by: Andrew Or <[email protected]>
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 17, 2015

Test build #47881 has finished for PR 10339 at commit e1e67af.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 17, 2015

Test build #47885 has finished for PR 10339 at commit a1727ab.

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

@vanzin vanzin deleted the SPARK-12386 branch December 30, 2015 23:29
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