linliu-code opened a new pull request, #18126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/18126

   ### Describe the issue this Pull Request addresses
   
   There's a change in behavior for for SparkHoodieTableFileIndex since 0.14.1. 
The StructType(partitionFields) returned doesn't have the full path and causing 
data validation failures. This behavior was changed as part of this PR 
https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/9863/changes
   
   ### Summary and Changelog
   
   If there's a table with a nested partition column whose leaf name conflicts 
with another top level field the partitionedSchema passed to the new file group 
reader is incorrect. When I tried reverting the previous change found another 
issue where we are relying on 
HoodieSchemaConversionUtils.convertStructTypeToHoodieSchema to get 
requestedSchema in buildReaderWithPartitionValues but this fails because 
HoodieSchema doesn't like dots in the names.
   
   ### Impact
   
   High
   
   ### Risk Level
   
   High
   
   ### Documentation Update
   
   <!-- Describe any necessary documentation update if there is any new 
feature, config, or user-facing change. If not, put "none".
   
   - The config description must be updated if new configs are added or the 
default value of the configs are changed.
   - Any new feature or user-facing change requires updating the Hudi website. 
Please follow the 
     [instruction](https://hudi.apache.org/contribute/developer-setup#website) 
to make changes to the website. -->
   
   ### Contributor's checklist
   
   - [ ] Read through [contributor's 
guide](https://hudi.apache.org/contribute/how-to-contribute)
   - [ ] Enough context is provided in the sections above
   - [ ] Adequate tests were added if applicable
   


-- 
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]

Reply via email to