rdblue commented on a change in pull request #2608:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/2608#discussion_r635651943
##########
File path:
spark/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/spark/actions/BaseRewriteManifestsSparkAction.java
##########
@@ -86,26 +91,29 @@
private static final String USE_CACHING = "use-caching";
private static final boolean USE_CACHING_DEFAULT = true;
- private final Encoder<ManifestFile> manifestEncoder;
+ private final Encoder<RepairManifestHelper.RepairedManifestFile>
manifestEncoder;
private final Table table;
private final int formatVersion;
private final FileIO fileIO;
+ private final SerializableConfiguration hadoopConf;
private final long targetManifestSizeBytes;
private PartitionSpec spec = null;
private Predicate<ManifestFile> predicate = manifest -> true;
private String stagingLocation = null;
+ private RepairMode mode = RepairMode.NONE;
public BaseRewriteManifestsSparkAction(SparkSession spark, Table table) {
super(spark);
- this.manifestEncoder = Encoders.javaSerialization(ManifestFile.class);
+ this.manifestEncoder =
Encoders.javaSerialization(RepairManifestHelper.RepairedManifestFile.class);
Review comment:
Are these changes actually needed? The `RepairedManifestFile` interface
sends back the fields that were repaired. Is that specific to a file and empty
if, for example, the length for all manifest entries were already correct?
I don't see much benefit to doing it that way. If we were to have more
specific repair operations, then we don't need that interface at all because
we'd already know what manifests fields are being fixed.
--
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
