Skip to content

Conversation

@byronellis
Copy link
Contributor

Addresses #25011 by adding partitioned reads to the existing SchemaIO.


Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

  • Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: 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, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
  • Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
  • If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

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)

Build python source distribution and wheels
Python tests
Java tests
Go tests

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI.

Byron Ellis and others added 5 commits January 24, 2023 18:34
…elieve numeric and datetime are currently supported). Start adding a JdbcPartitionedReadSchemaTransformProvider as a more generic SchemaTransform. This fits better with the SchemaTransform approach as the partitioned read is actually a different transform entirely from the non-partitioned version.
…scussion. Added a test to the Python side that should exercise this pathway (though this is difficult to fully verify). Verified that it is actually run during tests and that it will fail if something is very wrong though.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 31, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #25240 (10e5483) into master (05dc71a) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #25240      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.97%   72.97%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         743      743              
  Lines       99037    99037              
==========================================
- Hits        72273    72271       -2     
- Misses      25398    25400       +2     
  Partials     1366     1366              
Flag Coverage Δ
python 82.51% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
sdks/python/apache_beam/io/jdbc.py 78.26% <ø> (ø)

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

if (outputParallelization != null) {
readRows = readRows.withOutputParallelization(outputParallelization);
// If we define a partition column we need to go a different route
@Nullable String partitionColumn = config.getString("partitionColumn");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just note that for newly introduced parameters it may need to check the existence of the field first, similar to #25062 otherwise may causing error in go SDK's xlang jdbc wrapper

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @byronellis if you do not have time, I am willing to fix the comments in order to make it in before Beam 2.46.0 cut.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

opened #25577 fixed a couple of things and test passed there

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @pabloem for label python.
R: @apilloud for label java.
R: @johnjcasey for label io.

Available commands:

  • stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
  • remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
  • waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

('output_parallelization', typing.Optional[bool]),
('autosharding', typing.Optional[bool]),
('partitionColumn', typing.Optional[str]),
('tableName', typing.Optional[str]),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was the tableName configuration field meant to be added?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 8, 2023

Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @pabloem @apilloud @johnjcasey

@ahmedabu98
Copy link
Contributor

R: @ahmedabu98

@ahmedabu98
Copy link
Contributor

Waiting on author

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 8, 2023

Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: review requested by someone other than the bot, ceding control

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 60 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@beam.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added stale and removed stale labels Jul 22, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 60 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@beam.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Sep 21, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been closed due to lack of activity. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Sep 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants