[#2389] fix:(remote merge): Fixed the issue of losing data when calling hasNext multiple times. #2390
Conversation
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
… calling hasNext multiple times.
zhengchenyu
added a commit
to zhengchenyu/uniffle
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2025
… calling hasNext multiple times. (apache#2390) (#32) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? KeyValueReader::next combines the semantics of hasNext and next, which is unreasonable and should be separated. ### Why are the changes needed? Fix: apache#2389 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? unit test and integration test
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
KeyValueReader::next combines the semantics of hasNext and next, which is unreasonable and should be separated.
Why are the changes needed?
Fix: #2389
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
unit test and integration test