Skip to content

branch-4.0: [fix](fe) Normalize default HDFS paths in LocationPath #63476#63769

Open
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
branch-4.0from
auto-pick-63476-branch-4.0
Open

branch-4.0: [fix](fe) Normalize default HDFS paths in LocationPath #63476#63769
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
branch-4.0from
auto-pick-63476-branch-4.0

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-picked from #63476

Iceberg tables written through Hadoop catalog can store data file paths
without a URI scheme, for example
`/hadoop_catalog/db/tbl/data/file.parquet`. Doris should normalize these
paths with the catalog `fs.defaultFS` before creating scan ranges.

The Iceberg `LocationPath` cache path kept the original blank schema
after normalization and did not derive the schema from the normalized
URI in the cached fallback path. As a result, partitioned table planning
could fail with `Invalid location, missing authority`, and
non-partitioned scans could pass an invalid file type or fs name to BE.

This patch derives the schema from the normalized URI when the original
path has no scheme and keeps cached `LocationPath` creation consistent
with full parsing.
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 55.56% (5/9) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants