icexelloss commented on code in PR #35902: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/35902#discussion_r1229886355
########## cpp/src/arrow/acero/source_node_test.cc: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +// Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one +// or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file +// distributed with this work for additional information +// regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file +// to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the +// "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance +// with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at +// +// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +// +// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, +// software distributed under the License is distributed on an +// "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY +// KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the +// specific language governing permissions and limitations +// under the License. + +#include <gtest/gtest.h> + +#include "arrow/acero/exec_plan.h" +#include "arrow/acero/map_node.h" +#include "arrow/acero/options.h" +#include "arrow/acero/test_nodes.h" + +namespace arrow { +namespace acero { + +struct PauseThenStopNodeOptions : public ExecNodeOptions { + explicit PauseThenStopNodeOptions(int num_pass) : num_pass(num_pass) {} + + int num_pass; +}; + +template <typename ThisNode> +struct PauseThenStopNode : public MapNode { + PauseThenStopNode(ExecPlan* plan, std::vector<ExecNode*> inputs, + std::shared_ptr<Schema> output_schema, + const PauseThenStopNodeOptions& options) + : MapNode(plan, inputs, output_schema), num_pass(options.num_pass) {} + + static Result<ExecNode*> Make(ExecPlan* plan, std::vector<ExecNode*> inputs, + const ExecNodeOptions& options) { + RETURN_NOT_OK(ValidateExecNodeInputs(plan, inputs, 1, ThisNode::kKindName)); + auto bp_options = static_cast<const PauseThenStopNodeOptions&>(options); + if (bp_options.num_pass < 2) { + return Status::Invalid("num_pass must be at least 2"); + } + return plan->EmplaceNode<ThisNode>(plan, inputs, inputs[0]->output_schema(), + bp_options); + } + + const char* kind_name() const override { return ThisNode::kKindName; } + Result<ExecBatch> ProcessBatch(ExecBatch batch) override { + if (num_pass == 1) { + inputs()[0]->PauseProducing(this, 1); + ARROW_RETURN_NOT_OK(static_cast<ThisNode*>(this)->DoStopProducing()); + } + if (num_pass > 0) --num_pass; + return batch; + } + + int num_pass; +}; + +struct PauseThenStopInputNode : public PauseThenStopNode<PauseThenStopInputNode> { + static constexpr bool kPlanExitsEarly = false; + + static constexpr const char* kKindName = "PauseThenStopInputNode"; + static constexpr const char* kFactoryName = "pause_then_stop_input"; + + static Status Register() { + auto exec_reg = default_exec_factory_registry(); + if (!exec_reg->GetFactory(kFactoryName).ok()) { + ARROW_RETURN_NOT_OK( + exec_reg->AddFactory(kFactoryName, PauseThenStopInputNode::Make)); + } + return Status::OK(); + } + + using PauseThenStopNode::PauseThenStopNode; + + Status DoStopProducing() { return inputs()[0]->StopProducing(); } +}; + +struct PauseThenStopPlanNode : public PauseThenStopNode<PauseThenStopPlanNode> { + static constexpr bool kPlanExitsEarly = true; + + static constexpr const char* kKindName = "PauseThenStopPlanNode"; + static constexpr const char* kFactoryName = "pause_then_stop_plan"; + + static Status Register() { + auto exec_reg = default_exec_factory_registry(); + if (!exec_reg->GetFactory(kFactoryName).ok()) { + ARROW_RETURN_NOT_OK( + exec_reg->AddFactory(kFactoryName, PauseThenStopPlanNode::Make)); + } + return Status::OK(); + } + + using PauseThenStopNode::PauseThenStopNode; + + Status DoStopProducing() { + plan()->StopProducing(); Review Comment: > Wouldn't a fatal error detected by the node be a good reason to do this? Maybe, but I have not found code doing that. I would think the node would raise some error to the scheduler/plan and the scheduler/plan would take care of the shutdown. Either way I think it's probably better to Stop the ExecPlan from the main thread to trigger this anyway. > Sure. Why not as an additional test? I am not sure the way that you are currently testing is representative of how Acero stop producing is used in real case, there fore I think we should start with the test that is representative of what actually happens. If you want to add additional test to cover the case that is not happening in real use case (i.e., a node calls plan::StopProducing(), that is fine, but not the main goal of this PR IMO). -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
