Skip to content

Conversation

@liu-zhaokun
Copy link
Contributor

@liu-zhaokun liu-zhaokun commented Dec 5, 2017

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-21168
There are no a number of other places that a client ID should be set,and I think we should use consumer.clientId in the clientId method,because the fetch request will be used by the same consumer behind.

@liu-zhaokun
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 18, 2018

Test build #4153 has finished for PR 19887 at commit 5071789.

  • This patch fails PySpark unit tests.
  • This patch does not merge cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Apr 23, 2018

Seems reasonable; maybe @koeninger has a thought

@koeninger
Copy link
Contributor

Jenkins, retest this please

@koeninger
Copy link
Contributor

Seems ok to me, long as it passes retest

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 23, 2018

Test build #89733 has finished for PR 19887 at commit 5071789.

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

@koeninger
Copy link
Contributor

Merging to master, thanks @liu-zhaokun

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 448d248 Apr 23, 2018
zzcclp added a commit to zzcclp/spark that referenced this pull request Dec 6, 2018
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-21168
There are no a number of other places that a client ID should be set,and I think we should use consumer.clientId in the clientId method,because the fetch request will be used by the same consumer behind.
zzcclp added a commit to zzcclp/spark that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2019
…19887

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-21168
There are no a number of other places that a client ID should be set,and I think we should use consumer.clientId in the clientId method,because the fetch request will be used by the same consumer behind.
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.

4 participants