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
[SPARK-42614][CONNECT] Make constructors private[sql] #40207
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, LGTM.
It seems that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, LGTM
Scala/Java linter passed. Merged to master/3.4. Thank you, @hvanhovell and all! |
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Tiny PR to make most of the scala client classes have a private[sql] constructor. ### Why are the changes needed? Consistency, safety for the future. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? No Closes #40207 from hvanhovell/SPARK-42614. Authored-by: Herman van Hovell <herman@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit 43baed1) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Tiny PR to make most of the scala client classes have a private[sql] constructor. ### Why are the changes needed? Consistency, safety for the future. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? No Closes apache#40207 from hvanhovell/SPARK-42614. Authored-by: Herman van Hovell <herman@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit 43baed1) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Tiny PR to make most of the scala client classes have a private[sql] constructor.
Why are the changes needed?
Consistency, safety for the future.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
No