[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-46810?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17811631#comment-17811631
]
Serge Rielau commented on SPARK-46810:
--------------------------------------
Yes I prefer option 1.
Agreement from [~maxgekk] can't hurt.
> Clarify error class terminology
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-46810
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-46810
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Documentation, SQL
> Affects Versions: 4.0.0
> Reporter: Nicholas Chammas
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: pull-request-available
>
> We use inconsistent terminology when talking about error classes. I'd like to
> get some clarity on that before contributing any potential improvements to
> this part of the documentation.
> Consider
> [INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION|https://spark.apache.org/docs/3.5.0/sql-error-conditions-incomplete-type-definition-error-class.html].
> It has several key pieces of hierarchical information that have inconsistent
> names throughout our documentation and codebase:
> * 42
> ** K01
> *** INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION
> **** ARRAY
> **** MAP
> **** STRUCT
> What are the names of these different levels of information?
> Some examples of inconsistent terminology:
> * [Over
> here|https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/sql-error-conditions-sqlstates.html#class-42-syntax-error-or-access-rule-violation]
> we call 42 the "class". Yet on the main page for INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION
> we call that an "error class". So what exactly is a class, the 42 or the
> INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION?
> * [Over
> here|https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/26d3eca0a8d3303d0bb9450feb6575ed145bbd7e/common/utils/src/main/resources/error/README.md#L122]
> we call K01 the "subclass". But [over
> here|https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/26d3eca0a8d3303d0bb9450feb6575ed145bbd7e/common/utils/src/main/resources/error/error-classes.json#L1452-L1467]
> we call the ARRAY, MAP, and STRUCT the subclasses. And on the main page for
> INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION we call those same things "derived error classes".
> So what exactly is a subclass?
> * [On this
> page|https://spark.apache.org/docs/3.5.0/sql-error-conditions.html#incomplete_type_definition]
> we call INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION an "error condition", though in other
> places we refer to it as an "error class".
> I don't think we should leave this status quo as-is. I see a couple of ways
> to fix this.
> h1. Option 1: INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION becomes an "Error Condition"
> One solution is to use the following terms:
> * Error class: 42
> * Error sub-class: K01
> * Error state: 42K01
> * Error condition: INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION
> * Error sub-condition: ARRAY, MAP, STRUCT
> Pros:
> * This terminology seems (to me at least) the most natural and intuitive.
> * It may also match the SQL standard.
> Cons:
> * We use {{errorClass}} [all over our
> codebase|https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/15c9ec7cbbbba3b66ec413b7964a374cb9508a80/common/utils/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/SparkException.scala#L30]
> – literally in thousands of places – to refer to strings like
> INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION.
> ** It's probably not practical to update all these usages to say
> {{errorCondition}} instead, so if we go with this approach there will be a
> divide between the terminology we use in user-facing documentation vs. what
> the code base uses.
> ** We can perhaps rename the existing {{error-classes.json}} to
> {{error-conditions.json}} but clarify the reason for this divide between code
> and user docs in the documentation for {{ErrorClassesJsonReader}} .
> h1. Option 2: 42 becomes an "Error Category"
> Another approach is to use the following terminology:
> * Error category: 42
> * Error sub-category: K01
> * Error state: 42K01
> * Error class: INCOMPLETE_TYPE_DEFINITION
> * Error sub-classes: ARRAY, MAP, STRUCT
> Pros:
> * We continue to use "error class" as we do today in our code base.
> * The change from calling "42" a class to a category is low impact and may
> not show up in user-facing documentation at all. (See my side note below.)
> Cons:
> * These terms may not align with the SQL standard.
> * We will have to retire the term "error condition", which we have [already
> used|https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/e7fb0ad68f73d0c1996b19c9e139d70dcc97a8c4/docs/sql-error-conditions.md]
> in user-facing documentation.
> —
> Side note: In either case, I believe talking about "42" and "K01" –
> regardless of what we end up calling them – in front of users is not helpful.
> I don't think anybody cares what "42" by itself means, or what "K01" by
> itself means. Accordingly, we should limit how much we talk about these
> concepts in the user-facing documentation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
