[SPARK-42406][PROTOBUF] Fix recursive depth setting for Protobuf functions #40011
Conversation
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
Author
|
@HeartSaVioR , @HyukjinKwon , @SandishKumarHN PTAL. I would like to get this fix asap to make it into 3.4.x in OSS and 12.2 RC cut in DBR. |
rangadi
commented
Feb 14, 2023
| throw QueryCompilationErrors.foundRecursionInProtobufSchema(fd.toString()) | ||
| } else if (existingRecordNames.contains(recordName) && | ||
| recursiveDepth > recursiveFieldMaxDepth) { | ||
| recursiveDepth >= recursiveFieldMaxDepth) { |
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The main bug fix:
We allowed recursive depth go over by one. This makes the setting of '0' does not work as documented (earlier documentation stated even the first occurrence would be removed it it was set to 0).
Removing the first occurrence does not make sense since we don't know if this field is recursive until the second occurrence.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| test("Handle recursive fields in Protobuf schema, A->B->A") { | ||
| val schemaA = ProtobufUtils.buildDescriptor(testFileDesc, "recursiveA") |
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This extra code to create actual records is not required since we are testing an AnalysisException. It does not need real data.
| val df = Seq(employee.toByteArray).toDF("protoEvent") | ||
| val options = new java.util.HashMap[String, String]() | ||
| options.put("recursive.fields.max.depth", "1") | ||
| options.put("recursive.fields.max.depth", "2") |
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to increase the setting because this PR fixes off by one with enforcement.
Author
|
cc: @gengliangwang |
connector/protobuf/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/protobuf/ProtobufFunctionsSuite.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
gengliangwang
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2023
Member
gengliangwang
left a comment
gengliangwang
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM except for one comment
Member
|
Thanks, merging to master/3.4 |
gengliangwang
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2023
…tions ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This fixes how setting for limiting recursive depth is handled in Protobuf functions (`recursive.fields.max.depth`). Original documentation says as setting it to '0' removes the recursive field. But we never did that. We allow at least once. E.g. schema for recursive message 'EventPerson' does not change between the settings '0' or '1'. This fixes it by requiring the max depth to be at least 1. It also fixes how the recursion enfored. Updated the tests and added an extra test with new protobuf 'EventPersonWrapper'. I will annotate the diff inline pointing to main fixes. ### Why are the changes needed? This fixes a bug with enforcing `recursive.fields.max.depth` and clarifies more in the documentation. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? - Unit tests Closes #40011 from rangadi/recursive-depth. Authored-by: Raghu Angadi <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 96516c8) Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <[email protected]>
snmvaughan
pushed a commit
to snmvaughan/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2023
…tions ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This fixes how setting for limiting recursive depth is handled in Protobuf functions (`recursive.fields.max.depth`). Original documentation says as setting it to '0' removes the recursive field. But we never did that. We allow at least once. E.g. schema for recursive message 'EventPerson' does not change between the settings '0' or '1'. This fixes it by requiring the max depth to be at least 1. It also fixes how the recursion enfored. Updated the tests and added an extra test with new protobuf 'EventPersonWrapper'. I will annotate the diff inline pointing to main fixes. ### Why are the changes needed? This fixes a bug with enforcing `recursive.fields.max.depth` and clarifies more in the documentation. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? - Unit tests Closes apache#40011 from rangadi/recursive-depth. Authored-by: Raghu Angadi <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 96516c8) Signed-off-by: Gengliang Wang <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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 fixes how setting for limiting recursive depth is handled in Protobuf functions (
recursive.fields.max.depth).Original documentation says as setting it to '0' removes the recursive field. But we never did that. We allow at least once. E.g. schema for recursive message 'EventPerson' does not change between the settings '0' or '1'.
This fixes it by requiring the max depth to be at least 1. It also fixes how the recursion enfored.
Updated the tests and added an extra test with new protobuf 'EventPersonWrapper'.
I will annotate the diff inline pointing to main fixes.
Why are the changes needed?
This fixes a bug with enforcing
recursive.fields.max.depthand clarifies more in the documentation.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?