[SPARK-33925][CORE] Remove unused SecurityManager in Utils.fetchFile #30945
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
|
cc @vanzin, @gaborgsomogyi, @skonto FYI |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
HyukjinKwon
force-pushed
the
SPARK-33925
branch
3 times, most recently
from
7339ba0 to
44404cd
Compare
HyukjinKwon
force-pushed
the
SPARK-33925
branch
from
44404cd to
6153ec1
Compare
|
Test build #133443 has finished for PR 30945 at commit
|
srowen
approved these changes
Dec 28, 2020
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
Dec 29, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, LGTM. Thank you, @HyukjinKwon and @srowen .
Merged to master.
|
Thank you guys! |
|
Just gone through and late LGTM. Thanks for notifying. |
dongjoon-hyun
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2021
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is kind of a followup of #24033 and #30945. Many of references in `SecurityManager` were introduced from SPARK-1189, and related usages were removed later from #24033 and #30945. This PR proposes to remove them out. ### Why are the changes needed? For better readability of codes. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, dev-only. ### How was this patch tested? Manually complied. GitHub Actions and Jenkins build should test it out as well. Closes #31636 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-34520. Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
agirish
pushed a commit
to HPEEzmeral/apache-spark
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2022
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is kind of a followup of apache#24033. The first and last usage of that argument `SecurityManager` was removed in apache#24033. After that, we don't need to pass `SecurityManager` anymore in `Utils.fetchFile` and related code paths. This PR proposes to remove it out. ### Why are the changes needed? For better readability of codes. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, dev-only. ### How was this patch tested? Manually complied. GitHub Actions and Jenkins build should test it out as well. Closes apache#30945 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-33925. Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit b33fa53)
udaynpusa
pushed a commit
to mapr/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 30, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is kind of a followup of apache#24033. The first and last usage of that argument `SecurityManager` was removed in apache#24033. After that, we don't need to pass `SecurityManager` anymore in `Utils.fetchFile` and related code paths. This PR proposes to remove it out. ### Why are the changes needed? For better readability of codes. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, dev-only. ### How was this patch tested? Manually complied. GitHub Actions and Jenkins build should test it out as well. Closes apache#30945 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-33925. Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit b33fa53)
udaynpusa
pushed a commit
to mapr/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 30, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is kind of a followup of apache#24033. The first and last usage of that argument `SecurityManager` was removed in apache#24033. After that, we don't need to pass `SecurityManager` anymore in `Utils.fetchFile` and related code paths. This PR proposes to remove it out. ### Why are the changes needed? For better readability of codes. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, dev-only. ### How was this patch tested? Manually complied. GitHub Actions and Jenkins build should test it out as well. Closes apache#30945 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-33925. Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit b33fa53)
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?
This is kind of a followup of #24033.
The first and last usage of that argument
SecurityManagerwas removed in #24033.After that, we don't need to pass
SecurityManageranymore inUtils.fetchFileand related code paths.This PR proposes to remove it out.
Why are the changes needed?
For better readability of codes.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No, dev-only.
How was this patch tested?
Manually complied. GitHub Actions and Jenkins build should test it out as well.