+1, thank you! Note In my Row Coder PR I added a new section for "Additional Standard Coders" - i.e. coders that have a URN, but aren't required for a new runner/sdk to implement the beam model: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9188/files#diff-f0d64c2cfc4583bfe2a7e5ee59818ae2R646
I think this would belong there as well, assuming that is a distinction we want to make. On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:22 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > +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 >>> >>
