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

[hotfix] Correct the comments for FlinkSecurityManager #26325

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

beliefer
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

This PR aim to correct the comments for FlinkSecurityManager.
The original comments means cannot avoid the overhead. It is wrong.

Brief change log

Correct the comments for FlinkSecurityManager

Verifying this change

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
  • The serializers: (no)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Mar 20, 2025

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@beliefer
Copy link
Contributor Author

@@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ static FlinkSecurityManager fromConfiguration(Configuration configuration) {

boolean haltOnSystemExit = configuration.get(ClusterOptions.HALT_ON_FATAL_ERROR);

// If no check is needed, return null so that caller can avoid setting security manager not
// to incur any runtime cost.
// If no check is needed, return null so that caller can avoid setting security manager and
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: security manager -> the security manager
imho: I am not too worried about the text here - as the method javadoc seems to cover this. I would be inclined to remove this comment as it adds nothing to the javadoc. If we want to improve it, it would be better to have this comment explain why these if conditions indicate that we should not return a FlinkSecurityManager.

  • but if we change it here we should use the same words in the methods javadoc.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, the javadoc seems good enough. I think this inner comments just for readability.

@beliefer
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @GOODBOY008

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