Skip to content

Conversation

@PengningYang
Copy link
Contributor

@PengningYang PengningYang commented Jun 5, 2025

…make it final

  • I have registered the PR changes.

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did

Remove the unused defaultEventExecutorGroup initialization in NettyClientBootstrap and make it final

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

fixes #6132

Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)?

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

@YongGoose YongGoose added the first-time contributor first-time contributor label Jun 5, 2025
private final EventLoopGroup eventLoopGroupWorker;

private EventExecutorGroup defaultEventExecutorGroup;
private final EventExecutorGroup defaultEventExecutorGroup;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Was there any specific reason you decided not to remove defaultEventExecutorGroup?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Was there any specific reason you decided not to remove defaultEventExecutorGroup?

Considering the limited understanding of the original design, we will adhere to the principle of minimal changes and prioritize resolving the resource consumption issue with the ​DefaultEventExecutorGroup. If there are no plans to enable this feature in the future, I could also consider removing it.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Was there any specific reason you decided not to remove defaultEventExecutorGroup?

Considering the limited understanding of the original design, we will adhere to the principle of minimal changes and prioritize resolving the resource consumption issue with the ​DefaultEventExecutorGroup. If there are no plans to enable this feature in the future, I could also consider removing it.

I think it can be deleted now.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1
Since we’ve already confirmed in the issue that it’s no longer being used, I believe it’s best to remove it!
Splitting the work into two steps introduces unnecessary process, in my opinion.

Since both PMC members and committers will review the code and catch any unexpected issues, I don’t think there’s any need to worry.

I believe this is the purpose of the code review process. 🙂

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It has been completely removed. Please review it, experts.😊

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 5, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 59.02%. Comparing base (0466581) to head (7b08b42).
Report is 1 commits behind head on 2.x.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                2.x    #7414      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     59.01%   59.02%   +0.01%     
+ Complexity      531      529       -2     
============================================
  Files          1281     1281              
  Lines         46109    46102       -7     
  Branches       5563     5562       -1     
============================================
+ Hits          27210    27211       +1     
+ Misses        16330    16327       -3     
+ Partials       2569     2564       -5     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...ta/core/rpc/netty/AbstractNettyRemotingClient.java 45.54% <100.00%> (ø)
...che/seata/core/rpc/netty/NettyClientBootstrap.java 57.60% <ø> (-1.99%) ⬇️
...he/seata/core/rpc/netty/RmNettyRemotingClient.java 49.65% <100.00%> (ø)
...he/seata/core/rpc/netty/TmNettyRemotingClient.java 75.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

Impacted file tree graph

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@funky-eyes funky-eyes added this to the 2.5.0 milestone Jun 5, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@funky-eyes funky-eyes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@funky-eyes funky-eyes changed the title optimize: Remove the unused defaultEventExecutorGroup initialization … optimize: Remove the unused defaultEventExecutorGroup Jun 6, 2025
@funky-eyes funky-eyes merged commit a5219e9 into apache:2.x Jun 6, 2025
9 checks passed
@funky-eyes
Copy link
Contributor

funky-eyes commented Jun 6, 2025

Please send your DingTalk ID to [email protected], and I will invite you to join the Seata developers group.

slievrly pushed a commit to slievrly/fescar that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2025
YvCeung pushed a commit to YvCeung/incubator-seata that referenced this pull request Dec 25, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

What does the defaultEventExecutorGroup in NettyClientBootstrap do?

3 participants