Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix for increased FAILED_PRECONDITION errors in BQ Read API. #21739

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 8, 2022

Conversation

vachan-shetty
Copy link
Contributor

This line was erroneously removed in #16231.

This line triggers the FAILED_PRECONDITION checks that are used to figure out if asplitAtFraction() call was successful.


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

  • Choose reviewer(s) and mention them in a comment (R: @username).
  • Add a link to the appropriate issue in your description, if applicable. This will automatically link the pull request to the issue.
  • 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

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

@asf-ci
Copy link

asf-ci commented Jun 7, 2022

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

1 similar comment
@asf-ci
Copy link

asf-ci commented Jun 7, 2022

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@vachan-shetty
Copy link
Contributor Author

R: @chamikaramj, @pabloem

@chamikaramj
Copy link
Contributor

cc: @TheNeuralBit

@@ -355,6 +356,7 @@ public synchronized BigQueryStorageStreamSource<T> getCurrentSource() {
.build(),
source.readSession.getTable());
newResponseIterator = newResponseStream.iterator();
newResponseIterator.hasNext();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably let's add a comment here describing why this call is important. For someone who doesn't understand the details regarding the BQ API, it's just an ignored hasNext call which might be removed in the future cleanups.

Also, does this points to an issue with the API ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added a comment.

I don't think this indicates an issue with the API per se. We could probably try and read from the stream more explicitly in case that is clearer but the comment also points out why this important now.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it be feasible to add a test that exercises this behavior?

@vachan-shetty
Copy link
Contributor Author

Run Java PreCommit

@aaltay
Copy link
Member

aaltay commented Jun 8, 2022

/cc @pabloem - Could you please include this in the next release cut?

@vachan-shetty - if this is not merged in the next day or so, could you please create a release blocking github issue to make sure that this change makes to the next release.

@chamikaramj
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM. Thanks.

@chamikaramj chamikaramj merged commit 3778799 into apache:master Jun 8, 2022
@vachan-shetty vachan-shetty deleted the offsets-issue branch June 9, 2022 17:45
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.

None yet

5 participants