lukecwik commented on a change in pull request #15704:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15704#discussion_r727581454
##########
File path:
sdks/java/core/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/ParDoTest.java
##########
@@ -2438,6 +2438,62 @@ public void processElement(
pipeline.run();
}
+ @Test
+ @Category({
+ ValidatesRunner.class,
+ UsesStatefulParDo.class,
+ UsesMapState.class,
+ UsesTestStream.class
+ })
+ public void testMapStateNoReadOnReadableState() {
+ final String stateId = "foo";
+ final String countStateId = "count";
+
+ DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>> fn =
+ new DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>>() {
+
+ @StateId(stateId)
+ private final StateSpec<MapState<String, Integer>> mapState =
+ StateSpecs.map(StringUtf8Coder.of(), VarIntCoder.of());
+
+ @StateId(countStateId)
+ private final StateSpec<CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>>
countState =
+ StateSpecs.combiningFromInputInternal(VarIntCoder.of(),
Sum.ofIntegers());
Review comment:
Is coder inference broken if we rely on `combining`?
##########
File path:
sdks/java/core/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/ParDoTest.java
##########
@@ -2438,6 +2438,62 @@ public void processElement(
pipeline.run();
}
+ @Test
+ @Category({
+ ValidatesRunner.class,
+ UsesStatefulParDo.class,
+ UsesMapState.class,
+ UsesTestStream.class
+ })
+ public void testMapStateNoReadOnReadableState() {
+ final String stateId = "foo";
+ final String countStateId = "count";
+
+ DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>> fn =
+ new DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>>() {
+
+ @StateId(stateId)
+ private final StateSpec<MapState<String, Integer>> mapState =
+ StateSpecs.map(StringUtf8Coder.of(), VarIntCoder.of());
+
+ @StateId(countStateId)
+ private final StateSpec<CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>>
countState =
+ StateSpecs.combiningFromInputInternal(VarIntCoder.of(),
Sum.ofIntegers());
+
+ @ProcessElement
+ public void processElement(
+ ProcessContext c,
+ @Element KV<String, KV<String, Integer>> element,
+ @StateId(stateId) MapState<String, Integer> state,
+ @StateId(countStateId) CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>
count,
+ OutputReceiver<KV<String, Integer>> r) {
+ KV<String, Integer> value = element.getValue();
+ state.putIfAbsent(value.getKey(), value.getValue());
Review comment:
Could we use putIfAbsent() for `a` and computeIfAbsent for `b` so we get
coverage for both?
##########
File path:
sdks/java/core/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/ParDoTest.java
##########
@@ -2438,6 +2438,62 @@ public void processElement(
pipeline.run();
}
+ @Test
+ @Category({
+ ValidatesRunner.class,
+ UsesStatefulParDo.class,
+ UsesMapState.class,
+ UsesTestStream.class
+ })
+ public void testMapStateNoReadOnReadableState() {
+ final String stateId = "foo";
+ final String countStateId = "count";
+
+ DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>> fn =
+ new DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>>() {
+
+ @StateId(stateId)
+ private final StateSpec<MapState<String, Integer>> mapState =
+ StateSpecs.map(StringUtf8Coder.of(), VarIntCoder.of());
+
+ @StateId(countStateId)
+ private final StateSpec<CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>>
countState =
+ StateSpecs.combiningFromInputInternal(VarIntCoder.of(),
Sum.ofIntegers());
+
+ @ProcessElement
+ public void processElement(
+ ProcessContext c,
+ @Element KV<String, KV<String, Integer>> element,
+ @StateId(stateId) MapState<String, Integer> state,
+ @StateId(countStateId) CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>
count,
+ OutputReceiver<KV<String, Integer>> r) {
+ KV<String, Integer> value = element.getValue();
+ state.putIfAbsent(value.getKey(), value.getValue());
+ count.add(1);
+ if (count.read() >= 4) {
+ Iterable<Map.Entry<String, Integer>> iterate =
state.entries().read();
+ assertEquals(2, Iterables.size(iterate));
Review comment:
```suggestion
```
This is redundant when compared with the PAssert that runs outside of the
pipeline.
##########
File path:
sdks/java/core/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/ParDoTest.java
##########
@@ -2438,6 +2438,62 @@ public void processElement(
pipeline.run();
}
+ @Test
+ @Category({
+ ValidatesRunner.class,
+ UsesStatefulParDo.class,
+ UsesMapState.class,
+ UsesTestStream.class
+ })
+ public void testMapStateNoReadOnReadableState() {
Review comment:
```suggestion
public void
testMapStateNoReadOnComputeIfAbsentAndPutIfAbsentInsertsElement() {
```
##########
File path:
sdks/java/core/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/ParDoTest.java
##########
@@ -2438,6 +2438,62 @@ public void processElement(
pipeline.run();
}
+ @Test
+ @Category({
+ ValidatesRunner.class,
+ UsesStatefulParDo.class,
+ UsesMapState.class,
+ UsesTestStream.class
+ })
+ public void testMapStateNoReadOnReadableState() {
+ final String stateId = "foo";
+ final String countStateId = "count";
+
+ DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>> fn =
+ new DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>>() {
+
+ @StateId(stateId)
+ private final StateSpec<MapState<String, Integer>> mapState =
+ StateSpecs.map(StringUtf8Coder.of(), VarIntCoder.of());
+
+ @StateId(countStateId)
+ private final StateSpec<CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>>
countState =
+ StateSpecs.combiningFromInputInternal(VarIntCoder.of(),
Sum.ofIntegers());
Review comment:
Is coder inference broken if we rely on `StateSpec#combining`?
##########
File path:
sdks/java/core/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/transforms/ParDoTest.java
##########
@@ -2438,6 +2438,62 @@ public void processElement(
pipeline.run();
}
+ @Test
+ @Category({
+ ValidatesRunner.class,
+ UsesStatefulParDo.class,
+ UsesMapState.class,
+ UsesTestStream.class
+ })
+ public void testMapStateNoReadOnReadableState() {
+ final String stateId = "foo";
+ final String countStateId = "count";
+
+ DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>> fn =
+ new DoFn<KV<String, KV<String, Integer>>, KV<String, Integer>>() {
+
+ @StateId(stateId)
+ private final StateSpec<MapState<String, Integer>> mapState =
+ StateSpecs.map(StringUtf8Coder.of(), VarIntCoder.of());
+
+ @StateId(countStateId)
+ private final StateSpec<CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>>
countState =
+ StateSpecs.combiningFromInputInternal(VarIntCoder.of(),
Sum.ofIntegers());
+
+ @ProcessElement
+ public void processElement(
+ ProcessContext c,
+ @Element KV<String, KV<String, Integer>> element,
+ @StateId(stateId) MapState<String, Integer> state,
+ @StateId(countStateId) CombiningState<Integer, int[], Integer>
count,
+ OutputReceiver<KV<String, Integer>> r) {
+ KV<String, Integer> value = element.getValue();
+ state.putIfAbsent(value.getKey(), value.getValue());
Review comment:
Could we use `putIfAbsent()` for `a` and `computeIfAbsent()` for `b` so
we get coverage for both?
--
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]
