Revert "Per element schema parsing in ConvertToBeamRows"

[Abacn]

Reverts #36393

Fix #35285 ; fix #34990

Clean up tests for release cut. Since the original PR is for optimization not bug fix, forward fix can be done in parallel.

Tested locally with export EXPANSION_JARS=...; pytest -v --capture=no apache_beam/io/external/xlang_bigqueryio_it_test.py::BigQueryXlangStorageWriteIT::test_write_with_dicts_cdc --test-pipeline-options='--runner=TestDirectRunner --project=apache-beam-testing'

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Abacn, 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 aims to enhance the stability of the Apache Beam BigQuery I/O connector by reverting a recent optimization related to per-element schema parsing. This temporary rollback is a strategic move to resolve existing bugs and streamline the release process, with the understanding that the optimization can be re-evaluated and re-implemented more robustly in a future iteration.

Highlights

• Revert of Optimization: This pull request reverts the changes introduced by Per element schema parsing in ConvertToBeamRows #36393, which implemented per-element schema parsing within the ConvertToBeamRows class.
• Bug Fixes: The revert specifically addresses and aims to fix issues The PostCommit Python Xlang Gcp Direct job is flaky #35285 and The PostCommit Python Xlang Gcp Dataflow job is flaky #34990, suggesting that the previous optimization may have introduced or exacerbated these bugs.
• Release Preparation: The revert is also intended to clean up tests for an upcoming release cut, prioritizing stability over the optimization for the current release cycle.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The 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 /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize 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 .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. 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.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[Abacn]

R: @Amar3tto

cc: @stankiewicz

[github-actions]

Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: review requested by someone other than the bot, ceding control. If you'd like to restart, comment assign set of reviewers

[Abacn]

Retried failed workflow still failing tests

python 3.13 tests in general appears to be more flaky -- Python 3.13 uses grpcio>=1.67.0. @tvalentyn @jrmccluskey (possibly related to #34081) ?

[jrmccluskey]

Weird, that ML deps workflow failure is showing a successful build but actions has marked it as a fail.

I don't know if the grpc bug is confirmed as fixed yet, but that would cause more noise in the 3.13 tests

[tvalentyn]

python 3.13 tests in general appears to be more flaky -- Python 3.13 uses grpcio>=1.67.0. @tvalentyn @jrmccluskey (possibly related to #34081) ?

Yes, this is very possible, particularly if tests are launching subprocesses. per @sergiitk, we can try to set

GRPC_EXPERIMENTS="event_engine_fork,event_engine_poller_for_python"
GRPC_ENABLE_FORK_SUPPORT=1

and see if it helps. These experiments will be enabled in an official grpc release, but tentatively only early next year.

[Abacn]

Thanks, let me proceed merging this for now to get two test workflow back green