Skip to content

Update Jenkinsfile Nodelabel - #169

Closed
James Kao (jkao97) wants to merge 3 commits into
confluentinc:masterfrom
jkao97:pr-update-nodelabel
Closed

James Kao (jkao97) wants to merge 3 commits into
confluentinc:masterfrom
jkao97:pr-update-nodelabel

Conversation

@jkao97

Copy link
Copy Markdown

No description provided.

@astubbs

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

hi James Kao (@jkao97) , does it need to be jdk 11?

Addresses issues reported:

- ConcurrentModificationException in ShardManager during Rebalancing confluentinc#188
- NullPointerException in PartitionMonitor during Rebalancing confluentinc#189

Notes:

- Improve impact of no-op removed state, so it won't be retrieved for analysis
- Change from removing revoked PartitionState instances to replacing with a PartitionRemovedState subclass
-- Advantage of this is there will never be NPE from stale references of work still in flight
-- Also means we can track history of assignment
- Several refactorings that have been waiting to happen related to the change
- Improved cohesion

Relates / Future improvements on this:

Refactor: Consider a shared nothing architecture, to reduce thread complexity confluentinc#200
@astubbs

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Grace Chen (@gracechensd) do you know?

@gracechensd

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Unsure, I would default to James Kao (@jkao97) on this

@jkao97

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

currently yes, jdk13 is no longer supported.

@astubbs

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Supersceded by:

Antony Stubbs (astubbs) added a commit to astubbs/parallel-consumer that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2026
…o and do not close

The triage split its cohort: ten mirrors with no fix got an agent and a note
each, and four that already had one were checked for a different thing - does
the PR actually close the issue. That second check happened in a session and was
never written down, which is the exact defect the companion note documents. A
finding that lives only in scrollback dies with the session.

Two need an edit before merge. #201 carries no closing reference and
describes itself as fixing "the log-noise half" of #155, but both the
issue and the PR say the other half was already fixed elsewhere, so there is no
remainder and the issue would outlive its own fix. #203 does close its two
issues, in the bare `Closes #169` form that docs/issue-references.md forbids for
anything posted to GitHub - confluentinc#169 and confluentinc#170 exist and mean
other things, so a human reading that body is guessing.

#204 needs no change: it deliberately does not close #177, and says
why. The gap there is on the issue, which has no comments, so the reasoning for
why it survived its own merged fix is visible only inside the PR body.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01SFRbSkHwaRw6YYFHHBWZ7p
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