This is great. +1 from me. Thanks Huaxin. Anurag Mantripragada
> On Dec 19, 2024, at 12:39 PM, Prashant Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1, Thanks, Huaxin ! > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:41 AM John Zhuge <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> +1 Thanks >> >> John Zhuge >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> +1 on the direction. It's great that Spark has standardized the error code >>> so that Iceberg didn't have to rely on error messages. >>> >>> Yufei >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 8:47 AM [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> This looks like a good improvement to me. Thanks, Huaxin! >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:37 PM huaxin gao <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> While working on integrating Spark 4.0 with Iceberg, I noticed that error >>>>> conditions in the Spark module are primarily validated through the >>>>> content of error messages. I need to revise some of the validation >>>>> because the error messages have changed in Spark 4.0. Spark has >>>>> standardized error handling by introducing error classes and SQLSTATE >>>>> codes since 3.1. I would like to align the error handling in the Iceberg >>>>> Spark module with Spark's standard error handling framework, specifically >>>>> by shifting from validating error message content to validating error >>>>> classes and SQLSTATE codes. I have prepared a quick write-up >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11qHUiCcKMJ-xAyfL__Yv7B1b5N-80-GIwE8AV96A2Ac/edit?usp=sharing> >>>>> for background information and an example. Please let me know what you >>>>> think. If there are no objections to this proposal, I will begin updating >>>>> the error handling in the Spark module. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Huaxin >>>>>
