HBASE-25299 Scan#setRowPrefixFilter Unexpected behavior #2674
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
@infraio Hi, could u help me to review this patch? |
huaxiangsun
reviewed
Nov 18, 2020
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/Scan.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
thangTang
force-pushed
the
HBASE-25299
branch
from
c8fcfda
to
c55dd55
Compare
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Looks good to me, but let's wait for what people say from dev mailing list. |
virajjasani
reviewed
Nov 19, 2020
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/Scan.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
458
to
460
| * Users can compose this logic externally through | ||
| * {@link ClientUtil#calculateTheClosestNextRowKeyForPrefix(byte[])}, | ||
| * so there is no need to implement it inside. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ClientUtil is IA.Private, hence not really recommended for direct use by downstreamers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ClientUtilis IA.Private, hence not really recommended for direct use by downstreamers.
@huaxiangsun suggest me to give more detail, so i put this link. What i mean is just user can do this things by themself. Should i remove this link?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can remove just this statement:
* Users can compose this logic externally through
* {@link ClientUtil#calculateTheClosestNextRowKeyForPrefix(byte[])},
* so there is no need to implement it inside.
because ClientUtil is IA.Private, hence we should not recommend it in Javadoc.
@huaxiangsun Thought?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Users can compose this logic externally through
- {@link ClientUtil#calculateTheClosestNextRowKeyForPrefix(byte[])},
- so there is no need to implement it inside.
+1 for remove these comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to remove. Sorry, it is just I did not know the alternative way to archive the goal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, this is a tough one. Ideally we can provide the link in comment but the class here is IA.Private.
|
@thangTang can you please also write a unit test with the same scenarios that you mentioned over Jira? i.e |
I'd like to, but should i write the UT in the patch? I think it would be failure and the CI -1. |
I didn't get why it would fail. What I mean to say is you can write unit test such that the condition you provided with "111" and "112" holds true. Please let me know if you still have doubts :) |
thangTang
force-pushed
the
HBASE-25299
branch
from
c55dd55
to
eec82f2
Compare
UT updated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
virajjasani
reviewed
Nov 20, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 overall, let's wait for @huaxiangsun 's response. Since ClientUtil is IA.Private, maybe it's not good to provide it's reference in Javadoc. However, I am fine to go with consensus.
Thanks @thangTang
Comment on lines
458
to
460
| * Users can compose this logic externally through | ||
| * {@link ClientUtil#calculateTheClosestNextRowKeyForPrefix(byte[])}, | ||
| * so there is no need to implement it inside. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can remove just this statement:
* Users can compose this logic externally through
* {@link ClientUtil#calculateTheClosestNextRowKeyForPrefix(byte[])},
* so there is no need to implement it inside.
because ClientUtil is IA.Private, hence we should not recommend it in Javadoc.
@huaxiangsun Thought?
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
huaxiangsun
approved these changes
Nov 23, 2020
thangTang
force-pushed
the
HBASE-25299
branch
from
eec82f2
to
ac44866
Compare
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.