Hi Dongjoon, Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I agree that V1.2.3 is a very old version and it should have been upgraded long time ago. At the end I fix my unit test by providing only a temporary File object without creating a real file in FileSystem. That's actually what my project's non-unit test code has already been doing.
Anthony On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 12:30 PM Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Anthony. > > Thank you for trying 1.7.0. It seems that your unit test reuses the test > file name. > > For breaking changes, I also raised similar breaking change issues at > 1.6.x and > fixed some in order to help the downstream migration. > > TITLE: Apache ORC Versioning (Semantic Versioning) > https://lists.apache.org/thread/nhw99jh1r0fc7r74cof0nhhdzvcqwvw5 > > There is another recent discussion on the ORC releases too. > > TITLE: [DISCUSS] Apache ORC Release Cadence > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ql5o2ndon1b0818d4z5nb6001q09z5ck > > AFAIK, Apache ORC didn't follow Semantic Versioning officially until 1.6.x. > We are still in the middle of transitioning toward `Semantic Versioning` > and enforcing it. > > BTW, you are talking about an ancient breaking change from 1.2.3 > (2016-12-12) to 1.3.0 (2017-01-23). > They were archived a long time ago and recently Apache ORC 1.5 became EOL. > It could be an example, but it's beyond AS-IS scope of backward > compatibility at 1.6/1.7. > > Dongjoon. > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 6:12 PM A L <anthonyn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> My project used to use Apache orc-core 1.2.3, in my code I use >> createWriter(Path path, OrcFile.WriterOptions opts) to create a writer, >> path argument is a file exist in FileSystem. It worked well. After I >> upgraded orc-core to 1.7.0, I found that my unit test failed with the >> org.apache.hadoop.fs.FileAlreadyExistsException. >> >> I found that in ORC-119 there was a change that added a PhysicalFsWriter >> into WriterImpl constructor. >> In PhysicalFsWriter's constructor it checks if the file exist and if >> overwrite is true. >> So it's this change breaking the backward compatibility, has anyone had >> this issue when you upgrade the version? >> How did you fix it? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Anthony >> >
