-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
API, Core, Spark:Add file groups failure in rewrite result #7361
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
nastra
merged 6 commits into
apache:master
from
waltczhang:add_failed_group_info_in_rewrite_result
May 16, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
945a548
Add file groups failure in rewrite result
d75b98c
Add import FileGroupFailureResult in BaseRewriteDataFilesResult
1f31e5b
Delete api info in revapi.yml
6d59eff
Delete api info in revapi.yml
a577e01
Change rewriteFailures to concurrent list
d7c3749
Change rewriteFailures's data-structure of newCopyOnWriteArrayList to…
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -755,7 +755,9 @@ public void testPartialProgressWithRewriteFailure() { | |
|
|
||
| RewriteDataFiles.Result result = spyRewrite.execute(); | ||
|
|
||
| Assert.assertEquals("Should have 7 fileGroups", result.rewriteResults().size(), 7); | ||
| assertThat(result.rewriteResults()).hasSize(7); | ||
| assertThat(result.rewriteFailures()).hasSize(3); | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit: could you also update the line above please? |
||
| assertThat(result.failedDataFilesCount()).isEqualTo(6); | ||
| assertThat(result.rewrittenBytesCount()).isGreaterThan(0L).isLessThan(dataSizeBefore); | ||
|
|
||
| table.refresh(); | ||
|
|
@@ -796,7 +798,9 @@ public void testParallelPartialProgressWithRewriteFailure() { | |
|
|
||
| RewriteDataFiles.Result result = spyRewrite.execute(); | ||
|
|
||
| Assert.assertEquals("Should have 7 fileGroups", result.rewriteResults().size(), 7); | ||
| assertThat(result.rewriteResults()).hasSize(7); | ||
| assertThat(result.rewriteFailures()).hasSize(3); | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit: could you also update the line above please? |
||
| assertThat(result.failedDataFilesCount()).isEqualTo(6); | ||
| assertThat(result.rewrittenBytesCount()).isGreaterThan(0L).isLessThan(dataSizeBefore); | ||
|
|
||
| table.refresh(); | ||
|
|
||
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of re-using the FileGroupRewriteResult, would it make more sense to have a FailedFileGroupRewriteResult, with just failure?
I dont think the bytesCount/fileCount make too much sense on failure, and we can also put the exception there? cc @aokolnychyi @RussellSpitzer for thoughts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it is ok that have a FailedFileGroupRewriteResult. What about the following data structure?
FailedFileGroupRewriteResult {
FileGroupInfo info();
boolean isFailedGroup()
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure why we would need a "boolean" wouldn't it be this class because it failed?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should probably have result have two new interfaces, something like
Then we won't mix failures and successes in the same list
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @RussellSpitzer reply,
Yes, "boolean" is redundant, They are great advice, I wiil fix them according to your advice.