-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
Flink: sync 1.15 with 1.17 for backports missed or not ported identically #7402
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ public void before() { | |
|
|
||
| @After | ||
| public void clean() { | ||
| sql("DROP CATALOG IF EXISTS %s", catalogName); | ||
| dropCatalog(catalogName, true); | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This one is not strictly needed for 1.15, as the change which caused the need for this is introduced to Flink 1.16. But it is ok to have it here too, to have less diverged code
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yeah. it is a little better to have less diverged code |
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Parameterized.Parameters(name = "catalogName = {0} baseNamespace = {1}") | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I remember that we merged this one: 5a4761c
What happened with it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks like a later backport unintentionally reverted it. I missed it during review. #6949