-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
[BEAM-12384] Set output typeDescriptor explictly in Read.Bounded transform #14854
Merged
iemejia
merged 3 commits into
apache:master
from
iemejia:BEAM-12384-read-typedescriptor
May 28, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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 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 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Do we maintain the
TypeDescriptor
information before forRead
? I was under impression that for most of cases we only setCoder
for a outputPCollection
.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.
You are right and I don't know why we don't pay more attention to this. Probably because coders seem to include the TypeDescriptor, any ideas @kennknowles ? is this redundant somehow?
In any case having this information seems important for the downstream transforms.
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.
It seems like the
typeDescriptor
can be inferred fromCoder.getEncodedTypeDescriptor()
. If we really want to populate this information in a consistent way, probably we can consider changingPCollection.getTypeDescriptor()
to infer thetypeDescriptor
fromCoder
if thetypeDescriptor
is set.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.
Yes, the expected use of this method is to set the type descriptor but not the coder. This way, the coder registry still can choose the coder.
Setting both is redundant, in theory. Setting just the coder should suffice. Maybe some plumbing needed? It was not really expected to look at either one in this way.
Another angle to consider is that type descriptor is Java-specific, while coder is the portable "type" of the data. I don't know if that matters here.
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'm thinking about changes like: #14870
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 like @boyuanzz fix because even in the presence of different Coders the TypeDescriptor is commonly preserved inside of the Coders. WDYT @kennknowles can you spot some particular issues about it?
I can rebase this PR targetting a generic implementation like the one on #14870 but I did not do it like that because I was not really familiar with the reasoning behind not relying on the coder typeDescriptor.
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.
Yea makes lots of sense.