[GitHub] flink issue #2985: [FLINK-5104] Bipartite graph validation
Github user mushketyk commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2985 Rebased this PR on top of `master`. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] flink issue #2985: [FLINK-5104] Bipartite graph validation
Github user greghogan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2985 @mushketyk I had meant just with a simple comment noting that with an anti-join we could also remove the FlatJoinFunction. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] flink issue #2985: [FLINK-5104] Bipartite graph validation
Github user mushketyk commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2985 @greghogan Thank you for the review. Can you give me an example of how you document joins? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] flink issue #2985: [FLINK-5104] Bipartite graph validation
Github user mushketyk commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2985 Sorry for the failing build. I've removed the unused imports so it should be fine now. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] flink issue #2985: [FLINK-5104] Bipartite graph validation
Github user greghogan commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2985 @mushketyk the build is failing due to unused imports (IntelliJ can be configured to automatically remove these). There are so many ways to implement the validator. Projections would reduce the data to be transmitted and sorted. I like to document when we are performing a different kind of join (here, an anti-join) for the day when these are available in Flink. I don't know how counting in the `FlatJoinFunction` followed by two `DiscardingOutputFormat` compares with the current implementation of a union and count (which is a dummy `OutputFormat`). We'll need to rebase this PR once FLINK-5311 has been committed. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] flink issue #2985: [FLINK-5104] Bipartite graph validation
Github user mushketyk commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2985 Hi @greghogan , Thank you for your feedback. I've updated the PR accordingly. The only thing that I did differently is that I've replaced projections and two `count()` executions with joins and one `count()` call. What do you think about this? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] flink issue #2985: [FLINK-5104] Bipartite graph validation
Github user mushketyk commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2985
I noticed that `Graph` has the following implementation of the `validate`
method:
```java
public Boolean validate(GraphValidator validator) throws
Exception {
return validator.validate(this);
}
```
What is the reason for returning `Boolean` instead of `boolean` here
(GraphValidator returns `boolean`)?
Shouldn't we change the return value to `boolean`?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
