[improve][broker] Refactor a private method to eliminate an unnecessary parameter

[guan46]

Motivation

• The canDispatchEntry method uses MutableBoolean as an argument, and then changes its value internally, but this variable is not necessary

Modifications

• Optimize code for readability

Documentation

• doc
• doc-required
• doc-not-needed
• doc-complete

Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository: guan46#3

[guan46]

I accidentally closed #23904, I submitted a new pr @lhotari

[lhotari]

I accidentally closed #23904, I submitted a new pr @lhotari

@guan46 If you accidentially close a PR, it can be reopened. It's better to continue on the original PR. I'll close this one and reopen the original one.

[lhotari]

Oh, I see why #23904 was closed. It used your master branch. When creating pull requests, it's necessary to aways create a branch so that you don't run into the issue. I'll reopen this one and let's continue on this PR.

[lhotari]

Oh, I see why #23904 was closed. It used your master branch. When creating pull requests, it's necessary to aways create a branch so that you don't run into the issue. I'll reopen this one and let's continue on this PR.

I updated https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/personal-ci/ instructions with relevant information.

[lhotari]

Please address #23904 (comment) and run tests with Personal CI in your own fork.

[guan46]

I updated the address, but there are some errors in the tests.Please take a look. @lhotari

[lhotari]

I updated the address, but there are some errors in the tests.Please take a look. @lhotari

What you should do is to ensure that tests pass with your changes. If not, it's either a flaky test or your changes break the tests.
For example this test breaks: https://github.com/guan46/pulsar/actions/runs/13072194671/job/36541465274?pr=3#step:11:2705 .

If you think that a test failure could be a flaky test, you can "re-run failed jobs" in the GitHub Actions UI.

For actual test failures caused by your changes, you should run them in IDE and debug the reasons why they fail with your changes. It would be pointless if a contributor makes PRs without handling this step on their own.

[guan46]

All the tests of my repo have passed, please take a look @lhotari

[lhotari]

LGTM

[lhotari]

/pulsarbot rerun-failure-checks

[lhotari]

LGTM

[lhotari]

/pulsarbot rerun-failure-checks

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 74.27%. Comparing base (bbc6224) to head (67fb138).
Report is 895 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ersistentStickyKeyDispatcherMultipleConsumers.java	90.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #23915      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     73.57%   74.27%   +0.69%     
+ Complexity    32624     2378   -30246     
============================================
  Files          1877     1853      -24     
  Lines        139502   143848    +4346     
  Branches      15299    16350    +1051     
============================================
+ Hits         102638   106838    +4200     
+ Misses        28908    28622     -286     
- Partials       7956     8388     +432     

Flag	Coverage Δ
inttests	26.75% <40.00%> (+2.16%)	⬆️
systests	23.20% <40.00%> (-1.12%)	⬇️
unittests	73.79% <90.00%> (+0.94%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ersistentStickyKeyDispatcherMultipleConsumers.java	86.27% <90.00%> (+0.63%)	⬆️

... and 1041 files with indirect coverage changes