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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[SPARK-48639][CONNECT][PYTHON] Add Origin to RelationCommon #47115

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

[SPARK-48639][CONNECT][PYTHON] Add Origin to RelationCommon #47115

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ad3b1eb
Revert "Revert "[SPARK-48639][CONNECT][PYTHON] Add Origin to Relation…
HyukjinKwon Jun 27, 2024
b4ada27
fixup
HyukjinKwon Jun 27, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 5 additions & 3 deletions connector/connect/common/src/main/protobuf/spark/connect/relations.proto
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ import "google/protobuf/any.proto";
import "spark/connect/expressions.proto";
import "spark/connect/types.proto";
import "spark/connect/catalog.proto";
import "spark/connect/common.proto";

option java_multiple_files = true;
option java_package = "org.apache.spark.connect.proto";
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -106,13 +107,14 @@ message Unknown {}

// Common metadata of all relations.
message RelationCommon {
// TODO(SPARK-48639): Add origin like Expression.ExpressionCommon

// (Required) Shared relation metadata.
string source_info = 1;
string source_info = 1 [deprecated=true];
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just switched to deprecation. It breaks the protobuf compat check, and I should backport this change all down to branch-3.4, which isn't worthwhile

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we try annotate it with a buf comment?

Something like

// buf:lint:ignore FIELD_NO_DELETE


// (Optional) A per-client globally unique id for a given connect plan.
optional int64 plan_id = 2;

// (Optional) Keep the information of the origin for this expression such as stacktrace.
Origin origin = 3;
}

// Relation that uses a SQL query to generate the output.
Expand Down
Loading