[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14966810#comment-14966810
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-2668:
---------------------------------------
GitHub user zentol opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1279
[FLINK-2668] Chained Projections are no longer appended
Chained project() calls (like project(0).project(1)) are no longer merged
into a single projection, but instead applied separately. This means that a
project() call will now have a consistent behaviour between DataSet and
ProjectOperator.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/zentol/flink 2668_project
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1279.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #1279
----
commit a2e41932c7ef5969aa6aeac78949ed2737999a54
Author: zentol <[email protected]>
Date: 2015-10-21T13:27:05Z
[FLINK-2668] Chained Projections are no longer appended
----
> ProjectOperator method to close projection
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-2668
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2668
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java API
> Affects Versions: 0.10
> Reporter: Greg Hogan
> Priority: Minor
>
> I have come across an issue in my code where I called project(...) on a
> {{DataSet}} which was already a {{ProjectOperator}}. Instead of reducing the
> number of fields from 2 to 1 this instead increased the number of fields from
> 2 to 3 resulting in
> {{org.apache.flink.api.common.functions.InvalidTypesException: Input
> mismatch: Tuple arity '3' expected but was '1'.}} when processing the next
> operator.
> This can be resolved by adding an optional explicit call to conclude the
> projection, perhaps {{ProjectOperator.closeProjection()}}. Can this be done
> without creating a new no-op operator?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
