anoopj commented on code in PR #16666:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16666#discussion_r3384622022
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/InheritableMetadataFactory.java:
##########
@@ -86,6 +98,9 @@ public <F extends ContentFile<F>> ManifestEntry<F>
apply(ManifestEntry<F> manife
file.setDataSequenceNumber(manifestEntry.dataSequenceNumber());
file.setFileSequenceNumber(manifestEntry.fileSequenceNumber());
file.setManifestLocation(manifestLocation);
+ if (baseLocation != null && file.path() != null) {
+ file.setLocation(LocationUtil.resolveLocation(baseLocation,
file.location()));
Review Comment:
I'm not certain, but I suspect this might cause manifest rewrite paths to
always persist the absolute location. (Appends paths would be fine). I guess
the tests are probably passing because the v3 paths are always absolute.
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/BaseFile.java:
##########
@@ -280,6 +280,10 @@ void setManifestLocation(String manifestLocation) {
this.manifestLocation = manifestLocation;
}
+ void setLocation(String location) {
Review Comment:
This is an open design question, but I think `BaseFile` is probably not the
correct place to inject the location since we want to isolate this to v4-only
code paths. Most likely, we will do the path resolution/relativization in the
v4-only adapter layer, as done in this
[prototype](https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16150).
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
