[FLINK-13073][table-blink-runtime]BinaryRow in Blink runtime has wrong FIRST_BYTE_ZERO mask

[AjaxXu]

What is the purpose of the change

Fix FIRST_BYTE_ZERO in BinaryRow which in table-runtime-blink module

Brief change log

• Fix FIRST_BYTE_ZERO in BinaryRow which in table-runtime-blink module

Verifying this change

• Added test that validates that FIRST_BYTE_ZERO is worked with 24-55 bit

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
• The serializers: ( no )
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): ( no)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: ( no )
• The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)

[flinkbot]

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

[JingsongLi]

Thanks @AjaxXu for your good catch, LGTM, just left a test comment.

[JingsongLi]

This is useless, because the previous setNull has allowed anyNull to return to true.
How about add a test:

int numFields = 80;
			for (int i = 0; i < numFields; i++) {
				BinaryRow row = new BinaryRow(80);
				BinaryRowWriter writer = new BinaryRowWriter(row);
				assertFalse(row.anyNull());
				writer.setNullAt(i);
				assertTrue(row.anyNull());
			}

[AjaxXu]

It's a good advise. I will change it.

[JingsongLi]

LGTM +1

[wuchong]

LGTM.

Merging

[AjaxXu]

LGTM.

Merging

Sorry for this pr, I have found a new bug with 0xFFFFFFF0, it's binary sequence is 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110000. It only have 4 bits of zero, actually it need 8 to skip header. I will fix it later soon.

[AjaxXu]

Actually I want to use ~0xFFL instead. But I'm not sure what the perform in big endian.

[JingsongLi]

~0xFFL and ~(0xFFL << 56L)?

[AjaxXu]

After test, it seems to that have the same expression with 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFF00L and 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFFL, I am going to use the short expression.

[JingsongLi]

@AjaxXu Good job! Now I think it is ready to be merged.

[AjaxXu]

@AjaxXu Good job! Now I think it is ready to be merged.

Thanks you and Jark's review.