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.

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

STORM-2121: Overriding StringKeyValueScheme.getOutputFields to contain both key and value #1822

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ikashperskyi
Copy link
Contributor

@ikashperskyi ikashperskyi commented Dec 10, 2016

Added proper fields to getOutputFields method of StringKeyValueScheme as described in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2121.
Minor refactoring of deserializeKeyAndValue method: inlined deserialization and added static import for StringScheme.deserializeString.

@ikashperskyi ikashperskyi changed the title Storm 2121 STORM-2121: Overriding StringKeyValueScheme.getOutputFields to contain both key and value Dec 10, 2016
@HeartSaVioR
Copy link
Contributor

+1

1 similar comment
@vesense
Copy link
Member

vesense commented Dec 12, 2016

+1

@HeartSaVioR
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry I'm revoking my +1. It's not a bug though I don't know why we decided to use 1 field with map. And we're breaking backward compatibility with widely-used module, so need to be thoughtful about this.

In fact this issue came from STORM-2123. Instead of changing existing attribute, we could add ByteKeyValueScheme to have same attribute.

@asmaier @ikashperskyi @vesense What do you think?

@ikashperskyi
Copy link
Contributor Author

@wurstmeister could you advise if this is a bug or why did we go with only one field if it's not?

@HeartSaVioR this would go into the next major release so I would worry about backward compatibility too much if this is indeed a bug. +1 on ByteKeyValueScheme.

@ikashperskyi
Copy link
Contributor Author

Now that I think about it we are currently returning a single value tuple with a map so it would make sense to return a pair instead.

@HeartSaVioR @wurstmeister @vesense @asmaier guys what are your thoughts on this?

@HeartSaVioR
Copy link
Contributor

@ikashperskyi I would like to also address this to 1.x so keeping backward compatibility is ideal for now.

@harshach
Copy link
Contributor

@ikashperskyi @HeartSaVioR StringKeyValueScheme should be emitting both key and value. Its a bug that we are not declaring the key field. For emiting only value users can config StringScheme.
This fix looks good to me , +1 on merging.

@ikashperskyi
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harshach @HeartSaVioR I feel there's more to it than that. My assumption now is only 1 field is declared because we're falling back to only deserialising the message given a null key. If we were to declare both fields the actual deserialisation should look like:
return new Values(key == null ? StringUtils.EMPTY : deserializeString(key), deserializeString(value));
I'll adjust my PR if you agree that this is the way to go.

d2r pushed a commit to d2r/storm that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2018
We are closing stale Pull Requests to make the list more manageable.

Please re-open any Pull Request that has been closed in error.

Closes apache#608
Closes apache#639
Closes apache#640
Closes apache#648
Closes apache#662
Closes apache#668
Closes apache#692
Closes apache#705
Closes apache#724
Closes apache#728
Closes apache#730
Closes apache#753
Closes apache#803
Closes apache#854
Closes apache#922
Closes apache#986
Closes apache#992
Closes apache#1019
Closes apache#1040
Closes apache#1041
Closes apache#1043
Closes apache#1046
Closes apache#1051
Closes apache#1078
Closes apache#1146
Closes apache#1164
Closes apache#1165
Closes apache#1178
Closes apache#1213
Closes apache#1225
Closes apache#1258
Closes apache#1259
Closes apache#1268
Closes apache#1272
Closes apache#1277
Closes apache#1278
Closes apache#1288
Closes apache#1296
Closes apache#1328
Closes apache#1342
Closes apache#1353
Closes apache#1370
Closes apache#1376
Closes apache#1391
Closes apache#1395
Closes apache#1399
Closes apache#1406
Closes apache#1410
Closes apache#1422
Closes apache#1427
Closes apache#1443
Closes apache#1462
Closes apache#1468
Closes apache#1483
Closes apache#1506
Closes apache#1509
Closes apache#1515
Closes apache#1520
Closes apache#1521
Closes apache#1525
Closes apache#1527
Closes apache#1544
Closes apache#1550
Closes apache#1566
Closes apache#1569
Closes apache#1570
Closes apache#1575
Closes apache#1580
Closes apache#1584
Closes apache#1591
Closes apache#1600
Closes apache#1611
Closes apache#1613
Closes apache#1639
Closes apache#1703
Closes apache#1711
Closes apache#1719
Closes apache#1737
Closes apache#1760
Closes apache#1767
Closes apache#1768
Closes apache#1785
Closes apache#1799
Closes apache#1822
Closes apache#1824
Closes apache#1844
Closes apache#1874
Closes apache#1918
Closes apache#1928
Closes apache#1937
Closes apache#1942
Closes apache#1951
Closes apache#1957
Closes apache#1963
Closes apache#1964
Closes apache#1965
Closes apache#1967
Closes apache#1968
Closes apache#1971
Closes apache#1985
Closes apache#1986
Closes apache#1998
Closes apache#2031
Closes apache#2032
Closes apache#2071
Closes apache#2076
Closes apache#2108
Closes apache#2119
Closes apache#2128
Closes apache#2142
Closes apache#2174
Closes apache#2206
Closes apache#2297
Closes apache#2322
Closes apache#2332
Closes apache#2341
Closes apache#2377
Closes apache#2414
Closes apache#2469
d2r pushed a commit to d2r/storm that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2018
We are closing stale Pull Requests to make the list more manageable.

Please re-open any Pull Request that has been closed in error.

Closes apache#608
Closes apache#639
Closes apache#640
Closes apache#648
Closes apache#662
Closes apache#668
Closes apache#692
Closes apache#705
Closes apache#724
Closes apache#728
Closes apache#730
Closes apache#753
Closes apache#803
Closes apache#854
Closes apache#922
Closes apache#986
Closes apache#992
Closes apache#1019
Closes apache#1040
Closes apache#1041
Closes apache#1043
Closes apache#1046
Closes apache#1051
Closes apache#1078
Closes apache#1146
Closes apache#1164
Closes apache#1165
Closes apache#1178
Closes apache#1213
Closes apache#1225
Closes apache#1258
Closes apache#1259
Closes apache#1268
Closes apache#1272
Closes apache#1277
Closes apache#1278
Closes apache#1288
Closes apache#1296
Closes apache#1328
Closes apache#1342
Closes apache#1353
Closes apache#1370
Closes apache#1376
Closes apache#1391
Closes apache#1395
Closes apache#1399
Closes apache#1406
Closes apache#1410
Closes apache#1422
Closes apache#1427
Closes apache#1443
Closes apache#1462
Closes apache#1468
Closes apache#1483
Closes apache#1506
Closes apache#1509
Closes apache#1515
Closes apache#1520
Closes apache#1521
Closes apache#1525
Closes apache#1527
Closes apache#1544
Closes apache#1550
Closes apache#1566
Closes apache#1569
Closes apache#1570
Closes apache#1575
Closes apache#1580
Closes apache#1584
Closes apache#1591
Closes apache#1600
Closes apache#1611
Closes apache#1613
Closes apache#1639
Closes apache#1703
Closes apache#1711
Closes apache#1719
Closes apache#1737
Closes apache#1760
Closes apache#1767
Closes apache#1768
Closes apache#1785
Closes apache#1799
Closes apache#1822
Closes apache#1824
Closes apache#1844
Closes apache#1874
Closes apache#1918
Closes apache#1928
Closes apache#1937
Closes apache#1942
Closes apache#1951
Closes apache#1957
Closes apache#1963
Closes apache#1964
Closes apache#1965
Closes apache#1967
Closes apache#1968
Closes apache#1971
Closes apache#1985
Closes apache#1986
Closes apache#1998
Closes apache#2031
Closes apache#2032
Closes apache#2071
Closes apache#2076
Closes apache#2108
Closes apache#2119
Closes apache#2128
Closes apache#2142
Closes apache#2174
Closes apache#2206
Closes apache#2297
Closes apache#2322
Closes apache#2332
Closes apache#2341
Closes apache#2377
Closes apache#2414
Closes apache#2469
@asfgit asfgit closed this in #2880 Oct 22, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants