Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[SPARK-22847] [CORE] Remove redundant code in AppStatusListener while assigning schedulingPool for stage #20033

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Ngone51
Copy link
Member

@Ngone51 Ngone51 commented Dec 20, 2017

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

In AppStatusListener's onStageSubmitted(event: SparkListenerStageSubmitted) method, there are duplicate code:

// schedulingPool was assigned twice with the same code
stage.schedulingPool = Option(event.properties).flatMap { p =>
      Option(p.getProperty("spark.scheduler.pool"))
    }.getOrElse(SparkUI.DEFAULT_POOL_NAME)
...
...
...
stage.schedulingPool = Option(event.properties).flatMap { p =>
      Option(p.getProperty("spark.scheduler.pool"))
    }.getOrElse(SparkUI.DEFAULT_POOL_NAME)

But, it does not make any sense to do this and there are no comment to explain for this.

How was this patch tested?

N/A

@Ngone51 Ngone51 changed the title [SPARK-22847] [CORE] Remove duplicate code in AppStatusListener while assigning schedulingPool for stage [SPARK-22847] [CORE] Remove redundant code in AppStatusListener while assigning schedulingPool for stage Dec 20, 2017
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 20, 2017

Test build #4017 has finished for PR 20033 at commit ace04a5.

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

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

vanzin commented Dec 20, 2017

Pyspark failures are unrelated. Merging to master.

@asfgit asfgit closed this in b176014 Dec 20, 2017
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.

3 participants