Skip to content

Conversation

@MaxGekk
Copy link
Member

@MaxGekk MaxGekk commented Oct 15, 2020

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Added a couple tests to AvroSuite and to ParquetIOSuite to check that the metadata key 'org.apache.spark.legacyDateTime' is written correctly depending on the SQL configs:

  • spark.sql.legacy.avro.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite
  • spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite

This is a follow up #28137.

Why are the changes needed?

  1. To improve test coverage
  2. To make sure that the metadata key is actually saved to Avro/Parquet files

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

By running the added tests:

$ build/sbt "testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.parquet.ParquetIOSuite"
$ build/sbt "avro/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.avro.AvroV1Suite"
$ build/sbt "avro/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.avro.AvroV2Suite"

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 15, 2020

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/34458/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 15, 2020

Kubernetes integration test status success
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/34458/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 15, 2020

Test build #129852 has finished for PR 30061 at commit 73f66e6.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Merged to master and branch-3.0.

HyukjinKwon pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2020
…gacyDateTime' in Avro/Parquet files

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Added a couple tests to `AvroSuite` and to `ParquetIOSuite` to check that the metadata key 'org.apache.spark.legacyDateTime' is written correctly depending on the SQL configs:
- spark.sql.legacy.avro.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite
- spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite

This is a follow up #28137.

### Why are the changes needed?
1. To improve test coverage
2. To make sure that the metadata key is actually saved to Avro/Parquet files

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No

### How was this patch tested?
By running the added tests:
```
$ build/sbt "testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.parquet.ParquetIOSuite"
$ build/sbt "avro/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.avro.AvroV1Suite"
$ build/sbt "avro/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.avro.AvroV2Suite"
```

Closes #30061 from MaxGekk/parquet-test-metakey.

Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 38c05af)
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]>
holdenk pushed a commit to holdenk/spark that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2020
…gacyDateTime' in Avro/Parquet files

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Added a couple tests to `AvroSuite` and to `ParquetIOSuite` to check that the metadata key 'org.apache.spark.legacyDateTime' is written correctly depending on the SQL configs:
- spark.sql.legacy.avro.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite
- spark.sql.legacy.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInWrite

This is a follow up apache#28137.

### Why are the changes needed?
1. To improve test coverage
2. To make sure that the metadata key is actually saved to Avro/Parquet files

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No

### How was this patch tested?
By running the added tests:
```
$ build/sbt "testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.parquet.ParquetIOSuite"
$ build/sbt "avro/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.avro.AvroV1Suite"
$ build/sbt "avro/test:testOnly org.apache.spark.sql.avro.AvroV2Suite"
```

Closes apache#30061 from MaxGekk/parquet-test-metakey.

Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 38c05af)
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]>
@MaxGekk MaxGekk deleted the parquet-test-metakey branch December 11, 2020 20:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants