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

Jump to bottom

[FLINK-18192][1.11 Backport] Upgrade avro to 1.10 #13903

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

[FLINK-18192][1.11 Backport] Upgrade avro to 1.10 #13903

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

rmetzger
Copy link
Contributor

@rmetzger rmetzger commented Nov 3, 2020

This is a backport of #13373 to release-1.11.

@dawidwys @rmetzger
[hotfix] Fix Pojo comparator field access
3422991 
The PojoComparator assumes it can access a field of a pojo directly. It assumes the field is either public or setAccessible was called before. This is the case though only if  the record went through serialization. This is not the case e.g. in CollectionExecution mode.

Starting from this commit we make all fields accessible in
PojoComparator constructor.
@dawidwys @rmetzger
[hotfix] Extract joda conversions to a separate class
57914c1
@dawidwys @rmetzger
[hotfix] Fix schema to DataType/Type conversion
06ea27b
@dawidwys @rmetzger
[hotfix] Fix time-micros and timestamp-micros handling
afd72ad
@dawidwys @rmetzger
[FLINK-18192] Upgrade avro to 1.10
5c71f6e 
This commit upgrades the default version of avro that flink-avro will use. It should be possible to downgrade the avro version in a user job as the binary format is compatible and we do not expose any dependencies on avro in the API.

Additionally this commit fixes handling of logical types: time-micros and timestamp-micros as well as interpretation of timestamp-millis in the AvroRowDataDeserializationSchema.
@rmetzger rmetzger changed the title FLINK-18192][1.11 Backport] Upgrade avro to 1.10 [FLINK-18192][1.11 Backport] Upgrade avro to 1.10 Nov 3, 2020
@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Nov 3, 2020

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 5c71f6e (Tue Nov 03 09:08:32 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

  • 2 pom.xml files were touched: Check for build and licensing issues.
  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Nov 3, 2020 •
edited

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

zentol
zentol requested changes Nov 3, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@zentol zentol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we should be making such a bump for a bugfix release.
It seems like quite a big change, and particularly that we had to adjusts tests and internal code makes me worried that we might be breaking compatibility.

@rmetzger
Copy link
Contributor Author

rmetzger commented Nov 3, 2020

Thanks a lot for your considerations. I'll close the PR.

@rmetzger rmetzger closed this Nov 3, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@zentol zentol zentol requested changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
component=Formats review=description?
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
4 participants
@rmetzger @flinkbot @zentol @dawidwys