[SPARK-42861][SQL] Use private[sql] instead of protected[sql] to avoid generating API doc #40541
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
LuciferYang
reviewed
Mar 24, 2023
| @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ class RuntimeConfig private[sql](sqlConf: SQLConf = new SQLConf) { | |||
| /** | |||
| * Sets the given Spark runtime configuration property. | |||
| */ | |||
| protected[sql] def set[T](entry: ConfigEntry[T], value: T): Unit = { | |||
| private[sql] def set[T](entry: ConfigEntry[T], value: T): Unit = { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Other places have been protected[sql] since 2016. Do we also need to weaken the access scope in this one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't find any difference between private[sql] and protected[sql] since it's meaningless to extend RuntimeConfig.
yaooqinn
approved these changes
Mar 24, 2023
LuciferYang
approved these changes
Mar 24, 2023
yaooqinn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2023
…d generating API doc ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is the only issue I found during SQL module API auditing via apache/spark-website@6159860 . Somehow `protected[sql]` also generates API doc which is unexpected. `private[sql]` solves the problem and I generated doc locally to verify it. Another API issue has been fixed by #40499 ### Why are the changes needed? fix api doc ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes #40541 from cloud-fan/auditing. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <yao@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit f7421b4) Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <yao@apache.org>
|
thanks, merged to master and 3.4 |
snmvaughan
pushed a commit
to snmvaughan/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2023
…d generating API doc ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is the only issue I found during SQL module API auditing via apache/spark-website@6159860 . Somehow `protected[sql]` also generates API doc which is unexpected. `private[sql]` solves the problem and I generated doc locally to verify it. Another API issue has been fixed by apache#40499 ### Why are the changes needed? fix api doc ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes apache#40541 from cloud-fan/auditing. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <yao@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit f7421b4) Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <yao@apache.org>
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This is the only issue I found during SQL module API auditing via apache/spark-website@6159860 . Somehow
protected[sql]also generates API doc which is unexpected.private[sql]solves the problem and I generated doc locally to verify it.Another API issue has been fixed by #40499
Why are the changes needed?
fix api doc
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
no
How was this patch tested?
N/A