-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 914
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
Fix check write for spark 3.5 unit tests #6793
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
assert(write.isInstanceOf[InsertIntoHadoopFsRelationCommand]) | ||
checkSort(write.query) | ||
} | ||
// TODO: CreateDataSourceTableAsSelectCommand is not supported |
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.
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.
why does CreateDataSourceTableAsSelectCommand
not support ? CreateDataSourceTableAsSelectCommand should call InsertIntoHadoopFsRelationCommand internally.
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.
InsertIntoHadoopFsRelationCommand's catalogTable will be empty
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.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6793 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage 0.00% 0.00%
======================================
Files 687 687
Lines 42442 42442
Branches 5793 5793
======================================
Misses 42442 42442 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
def collect(p: LogicalPlan): Seq[RebalancePartitions] = { | ||
p.flatMap { | ||
case r: RebalancePartitions => Seq(r) | ||
case s: LogicalQueryStage => collect(s.logicalPlan) |
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.
why do we need to match LogicalQueryStage
?
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.
Line 51 in b4838b4
check(sql("INSERT INTO TABLE tmp1 PARTITION(c2='a') " + |
This test case gets a logical plan like this:
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.
Is it a Spark issue ? IMO, LogicalQueryStage
should not exist in query execution.
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 guess it's because the logical plan is obtained by write.cmd
Line 108 in b4838b4
case write: DataWritingCommandExec => callback(write.cmd) |
🔍 Description
Issue References 🔗
KyuubiSparkSQLExtensionTest#withListener
in Spark 3.5 may not work, make the following adjustments:AdaptiveSparkPlanExec
when collecting writescallback
function in main thread to avoid assert failed not workingcollectRebalancePartitions
methoadDescribe Your Solution 🔧
Types of changes 🔖
Test Plan 🧪
Behavior Without This Pull Request ⚰️
Behavior With This Pull Request 🎉
Related Unit Tests
Checklist 📝
Be nice. Be informative.