-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25k
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
Change grok watch dog to be Matcher based instead of thread based. #48346
Merged
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
dc1fce4
Changed grok watch dog to be matches based instead of thread based.
martijnvg 2ec4e95
fixed checkstyle violation
martijnvg a672499
Merge remote-tracking branch 'es/master' into matcher_watch_dog
martijnvg 5a05235
Merge remote-tracking branch 'es/master' into matcher_watch_dog
martijnvg bd1766d
iter
martijnvg File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
This is inconsistent with the Javadoc. The Javadoc says the return value is "true if grok expression matches text, false otherwise". But given the current code it should say "true if grok expression matches text or there is a timeout, false otherwise".
Probably a better fix would be to change this line to
return (result >= 0);
. It looks like ML is the only component outside of test code that calls this method. If the ML file structure finder is told there's a match when actually there's a timeout then it will move onto the next step but then time out almost immediately afterwards when the overall elapsed time is checked during that next step, so the net effect is still that the endpoint times out. So from an ML perspective I don't mind whether you change this line or not. But it might be best to make the return value more intuitive before someone else uses this method in production code.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.
Agreed. I will change the jdocs in this PR and in a followup will do the change that you're suggesting here.