fix: chunk get together when random rechunk#3205
Open
yyy1000 wants to merge 5 commits intotypelevel:mainfrom
Open
fix: chunk get together when random rechunk#3205yyy1000 wants to merge 5 commits intotypelevel:mainfrom
yyy1000 wants to merge 5 commits intotypelevel:mainfrom
Conversation
diesalbla
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2023
diesalbla
reviewed
Apr 12, 2023
Jasper-M
reviewed
Apr 12, 2023
| else { | ||
| val (out, rem) = acc.splitAt(size - 1) | ||
| Pull.output(out) >> go(rem ++ hd, -1, tl) | ||
| Pull.output(out) >> go(rem, -1, Pull.output(hd) >> tl) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is Pull.output(hd) >> tl equivalent to s?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. I should change it to s. :) Thanks for that.
diesalbla
reviewed
Apr 12, 2023
| @@ -2413,7 +2413,7 @@ final class Stream[+F[_], +O] private[fs2] (private[fs2] val underlying: Pull[F, | |||
| Pull.output(acc) >> go(hd, size, tl) | |||
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is another error. The size should ideally be the desired size of the next output chunk, but that is the one being emited in acc. Instead should be -1, so that the next iteration recomputes a new size based on the first chunk of tl.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes! I realize it now.
Contributor
Author
|
Uh, it seems that it will lead the time to be longer and fail the pipeline. :( |
Jasper-M
reviewed
Apr 12, 2023
| test("rechunkRandomly sometimes emits everything in a single chunk") { | ||
| val fiveChunks = Stream(1) ++ Stream(2) ++ Stream(3) ++ Stream(4) ++ Stream(5) | ||
|
|
||
| val source = fiveChunks.rechunkRandomlyWithSeed(0.1, 2.0)(5).chunks.toList |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also the way factor and nextSize are implemented now, I don't think factor can ever reach maxFactor. So for this example nextSize can only be 0 or 1.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's true. Now the range is [minFactor, maxFactor).
Member
|
I can replicate the CI failures locally, can you replicate them as well? Not sure what's wrong, could it be getting into some sort of loop or something? Details |
Contributor
Author
Thanks! I replicated it locally but didn't discover the details. I should check it carefully. :) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This wants to fix #3195
Consider the case: if (size < acc.size)
The code will continue to append the 'hd' to 'rem', which may be larger than the 'size', to the next 'go' method.
And this will lead to the 'tl' being consumed totally without restricting the size of 'Chunk'.
:)