[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25044?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16595647#comment-16595647
]
Apache Spark commented on SPARK-25044:
--------------------------------------
User 'srowen' has created a pull request for this issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22259
> Address translation of LMF closure primitive args to Object in Scala 2.12
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-25044
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25044
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Spark Core, SQL
> Affects Versions: 2.4.0
> Reporter: Sean Owen
> Priority: Major
>
> A few SQL-related tests fail in Scala 2.12, such as UDFSuite's "SPARK-24891
> Fix HandleNullInputsForUDF rule":
> {code:java}
> - SPARK-24891 Fix HandleNullInputsForUDF rule *** FAILED ***
> Results do not match for query:
> ...
> == Results ==
> == Results ==
> !== Correct Answer - 3 == == Spark Answer - 3 ==
> !struct<> struct<a:bigint,b:int,c:int>
> ![0,10,null] [0,10,0]
> ![1,12,null] [1,12,1]
> ![2,14,null] [2,14,2] (QueryTest.scala:163){code}
> You can kind of get what's going on reading the test:
> {code:java}
> test("SPARK-24891 Fix HandleNullInputsForUDF rule") {
> // assume(!ClosureCleanerSuite2.supportsLMFs)
> // This test won't test what it intends to in 2.12, as lambda metafactory
> closures
> // have arg types that are not primitive, but Object
> val udf1 = udf({(x: Int, y: Int) => x + y})
> val df = spark.range(0, 3).toDF("a")
> .withColumn("b", udf1($"a", udf1($"a", lit(10))))
> .withColumn("c", udf1($"a", lit(null)))
> val plan = spark.sessionState.executePlan(df.logicalPlan).analyzed
> comparePlans(df.logicalPlan, plan)
> checkAnswer(
> df,
> Seq(
> Row(0, 10, null),
> Row(1, 12, null),
> Row(2, 14, null)))
> }{code}
>
> It seems that the closure that is fed in as a UDF changes behavior, in a way
> that primitive-type arguments are handled differently. For example an Int
> argument, when fed 'null', acts like 0.
> I'm sure it's a difference in the LMF closure and how its types are
> understood, but not exactly sure of the cause yet.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
