vinothchandar commented on code in PR #13742:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/13742#discussion_r2300690723
##########
hudi-common/src/main/java/org/apache/hudi/common/model/HoodieRecordMerger.java:
##########
@@ -63,8 +63,15 @@ public interface HoodieRecordMerger extends Serializable {
* It'd be associative operation: f(a, f(b, c)) = f(f(a, b), c) (which we
can translate as having 3 versions A, B, C
* of the single record, both orders of operations applications have to
yield the same result)
* This method takes only full records for merging.
+ *
+ * @param older Older record in terms of commit time ordering.
+ * @param oldSchema The schema of the older record.
+ * @param newer Newer record in terms of commit time ordering.
+ * @param newSchema The schema of the newer record.
+ * @param props The additional properties for the merging operation.
+ * @return The merged record and schema. The record is expected to be
non-null. If the record represents a deletion, the operation must be set as
{@link HoodieOperation#DELETE}.
*/
- Option<Pair<HoodieRecord, Schema>> merge(HoodieRecord older, Schema
oldSchema, HoodieRecord newer, Schema newSchema, TypedProperties props) throws
IOException;
+ Pair<HoodieRecord, Schema> merge(HoodieRecord older, Schema oldSchema,
HoodieRecord newer, Schema newSchema, TypedProperties props) throws IOException;
Review Comment:
On the same topic of, whether we need a new Pojo here or is `HoodieRecord`
the right choice. HoodieRecord is used here as a change record i.e we merge
multiple change records in commit time order, based on the custom logic.. Is
this use of the pojo consistent with other places ..
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
