kbendick commented on code in PR #4627: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/4627#discussion_r859354353
########## spark/v3.2/spark/src/test/java/org/apache/iceberg/spark/source/StructRecord.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +/* + * 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. + */ + +package org.apache.iceberg.spark.source; + +import org.apache.iceberg.relocated.com.google.common.base.Objects; + +public class StructRecord { Review Comment: Nit: As these two classes (StructRecord and InnerRecord) seem to only be used as java beans during tests, could you possibly name them something a bit more specific / something that makes it more clear that these are for test purposes? The file `StructRecord` on its own really seems like it is part of the framework and could easily be confusing for people (e.g. it was confusing for me). Some of the Spark tests use `LogRecord`, as well as some use `SimpleRecord`. Admittedly `SimpleRecord` might have the same naming implications, but `StructRecord` is so close to existing concepts and classes like `StructReader` for me. Maybe `TwoLevelRecord` or something might be more appropriate? I can see how `StructRecord` seems similar to `SimpleRecord` (though I personally wouldn't have used `SimpleRecord` either), but `StructRecord` is _super_ similar in name to existing Iceberg concepts. Even just `ComplexRecord` or `NestedRecord` or even `TestStructRecord` would be a lot better in my opinion. -- 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]
