Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6253
@xccui Yes. Without defining expression with custom reserved keyword, we
may need to leverage function which would be non-UDF which means we need to add
the function to default provided function
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6252
Addressed.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6252#discussion_r200352236
--- Diff:
flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/expressions/ExpressionUtils.scala
---
@@ -22,13 +22,16 @@ import java.lang
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6253
Btw, looks like it may be also possible for ExistingField to replace needs
of ParsingExistingField, via adding optional dateformat parameter (not sure
which is more preferred), but I feel we can
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6253
@fhueske
Thanks for the nice feedback! Addressed your comment except regarding unit
test. Let me try out adding unit test later, since it might bring too high
barrier as of now.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6252
@fhueske Addressed. Please take a look again.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6252
@fhueske
Ah I didn't notice the object is already existing. Thanks for letting me
know!
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6252
@fhueske
Yeah, that would be great. I'm happy to revert the change and introduce new
class.
I'm just not sure where to place and how to name it, since it will be going
to have
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6253
If we would like to answer 1 as "Yes, apply the change to ExistingField.",
we can rebase this PR with below branch.
https://github.com/HeartSaVioR/flink/commits/FLINK-8
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6256
@zentol Addressed review comment.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6256
@zentol First of all, thanks for the reviewing!
The RAT plugin `reads and parses` the .gitignore file like below so adding
it to .gitignore file in root directory is effective. The issue
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6256
There's already .gitignore file in flink-confluent-schema-registry module
directory, but it doesn't look like effective while running `mvn clean verify`
in flink root directory.
---
GitHub user HeartSaVioR opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6256
[MINOR] Add generated avro java codes to .ignore to avoid RAT error
## What is the purpose of the change
This patch adds generated avro java codes to .ignore to avoid RAT error
when
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6253
Seeking for some guides on this PR:
1. Maybe we could replace the implementation of ExistingField with the
implementation of IsoDateStringAwareExistingField since the implementation
GitHub user HeartSaVioR opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6253
[FLINK-8094][Table API & SQL] Support other types for ExistingField rowtime
extractor
## What is the purpose of the change
This patch proposes new rowtime extractor which is impr
GitHub user HeartSaVioR opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6252
[FLINK-9742][Table API & SQL] Widen scope of Expression.resultType to
'public'
## What is the purpose of the change
This patch proposes widen scope of Expression.resultType to 'pu
16 matches
Mail list logo
