+1 for adding the coder Please also add a test here: https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/model/fn-execution/src/main/resources/org/apache/beam/model/fnexecution/v1/standard_coders.yaml
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:17 PM Chad Dombrova <chad...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are there any dissenting votes to making a BooleanCoder a standard > (portable) coder? > > I'm happy to make a PR to implement a BooleanCoder in python (and to add > the Java BooleanCoder to the ModelCoderRegistrar) if everyone agrees that > this is useful. > > -chad > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:32 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> I think boolean is useful to have. What I'm more skeptical of is >> adding standard types for variations like UnsignedInteger16, etc. that >> don't have natural representations in all languages. >> >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:46 PM Brian Hulette <bhule...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Some more context from an offline discussion I had with +Robert >> Bradshaw a while ago: We both agreed all of the coders listed in BEAM-7996 >> should be implemented in Python, but didn't come to a conclusion on whether >> or not they should actually be _standard_ coders, versus just being >> implicitly standard as part of row coder. >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:29 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, noted here: >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9188/files#diff-f0d64c2cfc4583bfe2a7e5ee59818ae2R678 >> and that links to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7996 >> >> >> >> Kenn >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Java has one, implemented as a byte coder. My guess is that nobody >> has gotten around to implementing it yet for portability. >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:44 PM Chad Dombrova <chad...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> It seems a bit unfortunate that there isn’t a portable way to >> serialize a boolean value. >> >>>> >> >>>> I’m working on porting my external PubsubIO PR over to use the >> improved schema-based external transform API in python, but because of this >> limitation I can’t use boolean values. For example, this fails: >> >>>> >> >>>> ReadFromPubsubSchema = typing.NamedTuple( >> >>>> 'ReadFromPubsubSchema', >> >>>> [ >> >>>> ('topic', typing.Optional[unicode]), >> >>>> ('subscription', typing.Optional[unicode]), >> >>>> ('id_label', typing.Optional[unicode]), >> >>>> ('with_attributes', bool), >> >>>> ('timestamp_attribute', typing.Optional[unicode]), >> >>>> ] >> >>>> ) >> >>>> >> >>>> It fails because coders.get_coder(bool) returns the non-portable >> pickle coder. >> >>>> >> >>>> In the short term I can hack something into the external transform >> API to use varint coder for bools, but this kind of hacky approach to >> portability won’t work in scenarios where round-tripping is required >> without user intervention. In other words, in python it is not uncommon to >> test if x is True, in which case the integer 1 would fail this test. All of >> that is to say that a BooleanCoder would be a convenient way to ensure the >> proper type is used everywhere. >> >>>> >> >>>> So, I was just wondering why it’s not there? Are there concerns over >> whether booleans are universal enough to make part of the portability >> standard? >> >>>> >> >>>> -chad >> >
