Skip to content

Conversation

@openinx
Copy link
Member

@openinx openinx commented Jun 24, 2021

Address this issue : #2730

@github-actions github-actions bot added the flink label Jun 24, 2021
}

@Test
@Ignore("Disable it because the StructProjection will handle null value as non-null StructLike but throw NPE when" +
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Filed an issue for this comment: #2738

@github-actions github-actions bot added the API label Jun 25, 2021
}

public RowData project(RowData row) {
GenericRowData projectedRow = new GenericRowData(getters.length);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

RowDataIterator reuses object. this change deviates from that model and creates a copy for each row

Iterator<RowData> rowDataIter = rowDataList.iterator();

for (int i = 0; i < numRecords; i++) {
Assert.assertTrue("Should have more records", recordIter.hasNext());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not sure it is necessary to have the assertions on line 149, 150, 158, 159. this is like to test the RandomGenericData.generate function.

even if we want to do, we can keep recordList and rowDataList are as List. Then we can just verify the size of the list

}

@Test
public void testNestedProjection() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we probably need another test to verify the case that the top-level optional struct is null. randomly generated data won't cover that case

@Reo-LEI
Copy link
Contributor

Reo-LEI commented Sep 15, 2021

Since iceberg v2 expose by 0.12, more and more user encounter this problem. I think we should increase the priority of this RP and let it merge into master as soon as possible.

If you don't have time to deal with this PR, I think I could pick this up and keep it in progress. :) @openinx

@openinx
Copy link
Member Author

openinx commented Sep 15, 2021

@Reo-LEI , Pls go ahead. I can be the candidate reviewer for the PR, thanks.

@openinx openinx linked an issue Sep 15, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
@Reo-LEI
Copy link
Contributor

Reo-LEI commented Oct 7, 2021

@openinx @stevenzwu I pick this up on #3240. Could you take a look of that? :)

@openinx
Copy link
Member Author

openinx commented Nov 1, 2021

Closed via #3240.

@openinx openinx closed this Nov 1, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Table to retractStream error

3 participants