(IcebergIO) bugfix: propagate config properties to RecordWriter#39250
Conversation
|
Warning Gemini encountered an error creating the summary. You can try again by commenting |
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses a bug where Iceberg configuration properties were not being passed to the underlying writer. By updating the RecordWriter and its management classes to propagate these properties, users can now successfully apply specific write configurations, such as Parquet bloom filters, to their Iceberg IO operations. Highlights
New Features🧠 You can now enable Memory (public preview) to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
|
Warning Gemini encountered an error creating the review. You can try again by commenting |
|
Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment |
|
@ahmedabu98 , would you mind taking a look at this one? from what i can tell the CI test failures are flaky/unrelated. |
| filePrefix + "_" + stateToken + "_" + recordIndex, | ||
| partitionKey); | ||
| partitionKey, | ||
| catalogConfig.getConfigProperties()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IcebergCatalogConfig's configProperties refers to Hadoop config properties. We use it to initialize the Hadoop Configuration here (some old-school catalogs require it)
I think we should add a new writeProperties option to the top-level configuration and pipe it through to IcebergIO and the RecordWriterManager
ahmedabu98
left a comment
ahmedabu98
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great, thanks for adding this!
Confirming that IcebergIO unit test failures are unrelated (#39266)
2 participants
RecordWriterManager was not properly passing iceberg configuration properties to the underlying Iceberg writer.
Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:
addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, commentfixes #<ISSUE NUMBER>instead.CHANGES.mdwith noteworthy changes.See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.
To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md
GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)
See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.