Hi Sung, Thanks for the proposal.
I haven't had a chance to read the full document yet, but is this initiative similar to this <https://lists.apache.org/thread/87cvl9gk0cjk1of7jh3nvm4lzvzxnc8m> thread <https://lists.apache.org/thread/87cvl9gk0cjk1of7jh3nvm4lzvzxnc8m>? Both landed around the same time, which is great to see given the long-standing need for this. Perhaps there is an opportunity to join forces on this? Thanks, Anurag On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 7:55 AM Sung Yun <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Today Iceberg has five language implementations (Java, Python, Rust, Go, > C++), each in its own repository. We naturally see divergence in how the > spec is interpreted across them, even as we take a lot of care writing it > as expressively as possible. > > One way I'd like to propose to improve on this is by having a shared > fixture repository, modeled on arrow-testing and parquet-testing. The > repository will be focused on hosting fixtures for the edge cases where > that divergence shows up. These fixtures will act as additive checks to the > subprojects' existing test frameworks, give the community a single place to > anchor spec discussions about literal values, and make it cheaper for > subprojects to validate their interpretation of the spec against a known > set of values. > > To POC this, I seeded a fork with existing, known issues, and integrating > the tests also surfaced new issues. Here is what that looks like in my > forks: > - iceberg-testing (proposed fixture repository): > https://github.com/sungwy/iceberg-testing > - pyiceberg against it: https://github.com/sungwy/iceberg-python/pull/1 > - iceberg-rust against it: https://github.com/sungwy/iceberg-rust/pull/2 > > Let me know your thoughts. Here's a detailed doc [1] where we can discuss > specifics regarding the project scope and layout for those interested. > > Thanks, > Sung > > [1] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1diwxjG24IMW9jSkkyG8fet1YFDorDU1PNOFJ6tSWEWQ/edit?tab=t.0 >
