-
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
[runners-spark] Do not set accTimestamp to null in SparkCombineFn (#28256) #29162
Conversation
Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment |
Run Spark ValidatesRunner |
Run Spark Runner Tpcds Tests |
Run Spark Runner Nexmark Tests |
Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment R: @lostluck added as fallback since no labels match configuration Available commands:
The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments). |
CC: @mosche @echauchot |
I'm not convinced this fix is 100% correct. I'd need an instance of a failing job to see what exactly causes the timestamp to be |
8b514db
to
e528134
Compare
e528134
to
d342b95
Compare
@aromanenko-dev I think I have the complete understanding. The condition in the assignment was wrong (don't have any clue how it was reasoned), the problem is that it was hidden, because until there was at least one call to The bug manifested itself under the following conditions: Both conditions are satisfied in the case of query 3 in TPC-DS. The combination is somewhat niche, which is why it was not caught by VR tests. We can add a VR test for this, but I think that the bug was so specific, that it makes little sense. |
Run Spark Runner Nexmark Tests |
Run Spark Runner Tpcds Tests |
Run Spark ValidatesRunner |
Run Spark Runner Tpcds Tests |
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.
Great, LGTM, thanks a lot! It sounds reasonable for me
The condition in the assignment was wrong (don't have any clue how it was reasoned)
=) It was added 4+ years ago...
The combination is somewhat niche, which is why it was not caught by VR tests. We can add a VR test for this, but I think that the bug was so specific, that it makes little sense.
Actually, according to TPC-DS Grafana dashboard, it caused a lot of queries failed without catching it with VR tests, that worried me. TBH, I didn't see if any of users were affected (mostly because I guess SparkRunner is not so popular now) but it would be great to add any kind of regression test of this if possible.
Let's just wait for TPC-DS job results before merging.
Run Spark Runner Tpcds Tests |
Added the test, it is surely better to have a test proving the fix, though in this case it is only "the code does not contain this bug". Nevertheless the line of thinking that introduced in could in theory reappear. 👍 |
fe68bdb
to
3e3207f
Compare
Run Spark Runner Tpcds Tests |
Run Java PreCommit |
1 similar comment
Run Java PreCommit |
3e3207f
to
524a7bf
Compare
Run Spark ValidatesRunner |
Fixes #28256
Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:
addresses #123
), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, commentfixes #<ISSUE NUMBER>
instead.CHANGES.md
with noteworthy changes.See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.
To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md
GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)
See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.