GH-38597: [C++] Implement GetFileInfo(selector) for Azure filesystem #39009
Conversation
|
TODO:
|
cpp/src/arrow/filesystem/azurefs.cc
Outdated
| static std::string_view BasenameView(std::string_view s) { | ||
| auto offset = s.find_last_of(internal::kSep); | ||
| auto tail = (offset == std::string_view::npos) ? s : s.substr(offset); | ||
| return internal::RemoveTrailingSlash(tail, /*preserve_root=*/false); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about moving this to path_util.{cc,h}?
Because extracting basename from a path is a generic path operation.
We will be able to use GetAbstractPathParent() to implement this like return GetAbstractPathParent(s).second;.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 for factoring out generic path operations, and also unit-test them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem with path_util.h functions is that they don't follow any concept of path normalization for inputs and have to check the input for many variations, this BasenameView works well in this context, but not in a general context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm changing it to this:
static std::string_view BasenameView(std::string_view s) {
DCHECK(!internal::HasTrailingSlash(s));
auto offset = s.find_last_of(internal::kSep);
auto result = (offset == std::string_view::npos) ? s : s.substr(offset);
DCHECK(!result.empty() && result.back() != internal::kSep);
return result;
}
| Azure::Core::Context context; | ||
| Azure::Nullable<int32_t> page_size_hint; // unspecified |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't object them but why do you want to specify them explicitly?
Our other methods don't specify them explicitly. (They use the default value.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I want all the wiring to be in place if we need to specify the page_size_hint which I'm pretty sure we will need to tweak when this is used in practice.
cpp/src/arrow/filesystem/azurefs.cc
Outdated
| } | ||
| return Status::OK(); | ||
| }; | ||
| return ListContainers(context, std::move(on_container)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we pass page_size_hint here too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
page_size_hint only applies to the pagination of blobs. If I were to pass page size here, it would be a separate constant, but I thought this would be an overkill.
cpp/src/arrow/filesystem/azurefs.cc
Outdated
| } else if (cmp > 0) { | ||
| RETURN_NOT_OK(process_prefix(prefix)); | ||
| blob_prefix_index += 1; | ||
| } else { // there is a blob (empty dir marker) and a prefix with the same name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this really happen?
emptydir/ is a case of this in the test, right?
In this case, emptydir/ may exist in Blobs (with options.Prefix = emptydir/) or BlobPrefixes (with no options.Prefix) but doesn't exit in both of them. (I checked this with gdb.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the direction the whole implementation will move towards. CreateDir should create a marker blob, so we can check that an empty directory exists after it's created or after its contents are deleted.
As @pitrou said in another comment, all the Filesystem implementations should behave the same way.
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| auto list_response = | ||
| container_client.ListBlobsByHierarchy(/*delimiter=*/"/", options, context); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use ListBlobs() instead when select.max_recursion == INT32_MAX as an optimization?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would require that we build a trie of all the blob names to list them hierarchically. I'm open to doing it, but I think we can delay doing it until there is clear indication that it would help a concrete use-case.
|
I reviewed the tests, so I'm happy with the behaviour. I haven't had a chance to understand and review the implementation yet. |
| options.Prefix = internal::EnsureTrailingSlash(base_location.path); | ||
| } | ||
| options.PageSizeHint = page_size_hint; | ||
| options.Include = Azure::Storage::Blobs::Models::ListBlobsIncludeFlags::Metadata; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
General question: was it considered to have a namespace alias at the top of this file such as namespace BlobsModels = Azure::Storage::Blobs::Models;?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Something I prefer to do once all PRs land because it would be a noisy change.
felipecrv
force-pushed
the
azure_selector
branch
from
9ddef84
to
bf66d06
Compare
|
I rebased to fix a conflict, but the new changes are on the last two commits. |
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting committer review
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting changes
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting review
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting merge
|
I will rebase and force-push to see if all CI passes now. |
`length` could come from `FileSelector::max_recursion` which is default initialized to `INT32_MAX` and cause an overflow on the `offset+length` sum here.
These functions were added recently so no risk of ABI changes.
felipecrv
force-pushed
the
azure_selector
branch
from
e237bb8
to
e248400
Compare
|
CI failure is unrelated so I'm merging this. |
|
@felipecrv Did you use our merge script? GH-38597's milestone isn't set. In general, it's set by the merge script. |
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 476c78f. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 32 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
Oh no. Sorry. I had no idea. I will use it from now on. Anything we can do to make this right for this PR? |
|
I set GH-37597's milestone manually. :-) |
…ystem (apache#39009) ### Rationale for this change Part of Azure FS implementation. ### What changes are included in this PR? The version of `GetFileInfo` that takes a prefix and can optionally recurse into directories. ### Are these changes tested? By unit tests present in this PR. Separate from this PR, I'm thinking of way to fuzz-test the FS API. * Closes: apache#38597
…ystem (apache#39009) ### Rationale for this change Part of Azure FS implementation. ### What changes are included in this PR? The version of `GetFileInfo` that takes a prefix and can optionally recurse into directories. ### Are these changes tested? By unit tests present in this PR. Separate from this PR, I'm thinking of way to fuzz-test the FS API. * Closes: apache#38597
…ystem (apache#39009) ### Rationale for this change Part of Azure FS implementation. ### What changes are included in this PR? The version of `GetFileInfo` that takes a prefix and can optionally recurse into directories. ### Are these changes tested? By unit tests present in this PR. Separate from this PR, I'm thinking of way to fuzz-test the FS API. * Closes: apache#38597
Rationale for this change
Part of Azure FS implementation.
What changes are included in this PR?
The version of
GetFileInfothat takes a prefix and can optionally recurse into directories.Are these changes tested?
By unit tests present in this PR. Separate from this PR, I'm thinking of way to fuzz-test the FS API.
GetFileInfoselector for Azure filesystem #38597