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

[FLINK-12305][docs][table] Improve Table API/SQL time attribute documentation. #8336

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fhueske
Copy link
Contributor

@fhueske fhueske commented May 2, 2019

Contribution Checklist

What is the purpose of the change

  • Improve introduction of processing time and event time support of Table API / SQL.

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented May 2, 2019

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.

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

Copy link
Contributor

@hequn8128 hequn8128 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@fhueske Thanks a lot for rephrasing the document. The updates look good to me. I think it is easier to be understood now.

One little suggestion: how about adding a detailed description of how to handle late arriving data, as uses would still interested in it. The description would look like: Proper support for late arriving data has not been added to the Table API / SQL yet. Elements that arrive behind the watermark will be dropped.

Best, Hequn

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants