> On Feb. 26, 2014, 7:28 p.m., Rohini Palaniswamy wrote:
> > src/org/apache/pig/backend/hadoop/executionengine/physicalLayer/expressionOperators/POUserFunc.java,
> >  lines 302-303
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18525/diff/1/?file=504701#file504701line302>
> >
> >     Will there be a problem if schema had a bag or map?

No. As far as I understand, tuple is only a problem because UDF has to wrap 
them in a tuple if multiple fields are returned.


- Cheolsoo


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18525/#review35554
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 26, 2014, 6:15 p.m., Cheolsoo Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18525/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 26, 2014, 6:15 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for pig, Daniel Dai, Mark Wagner, and Rohini Palaniswamy.
> 
> 
> Bugs: PIG-3679
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3679
> 
> 
> Repository: pig-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> I discovered this regression while debugging the e2e test 
> StreamingPythonUDFs_10 in trunk. To summarize, replacing (STATUS_NULL) with 
> (STATUS_OK + null) has changed how null values are handled in some cases. In 
> particular, some UDFs that used to see no nulls are called with nulls and 
> fail with NPE now. Since this is a major backward incompatibility, I changed 
> POUserFunc to filter out nulls always. Technically, this still changes the 
> behavior with nulls, but it seems ok that UDFs that used to fail with NPE no 
> longer fail.
> 
> Here is my reasoning in more details-
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-3679?focusedCommentId=13892966&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13892966
> 
> Alternatively, we could let UDFs handle nulls by themselves. That seems 
> cleaner to me, but backward incompatibility is a concern (i.e. "My UDFs used 
> to work with 0.12, but it no longer works with 0.13").
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> src/org/apache/pig/backend/hadoop/executionengine/physicalLayer/expressionOperators/POUserFunc.java
>  f031b1d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18525/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> All e2e tests pass (except Warning_4 PIG-3739).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cheolsoo Park
> 
>

Reply via email to