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

GEOMESA-1198 Changing attribute table suffix #913

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 18, 2016

Conversation

elahrvivaz
Copy link
Contributor

Signed-off-by: Emilio Lahr-Vivaz elahrvivaz@ccri.com

Signed-off-by: Emilio Lahr-Vivaz <elahrvivaz@ccri.com>
@elahrvivaz
Copy link
Contributor Author

I tested out with old data and with old enabled indices and it still works.

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ object AttributeTable extends GeoMesaTable with LazyLogging {
override def supports(sft: SimpleFeatureType) =
sft.getSchemaVersion > 5 && sft.getAttributeDescriptors.exists(_.isIndexed)

override val suffix: String = "attr_idx"
override val suffix: String = "attr"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this affect 'existing' installations? I'm guessing 'no' since the table name would be configured in the metadata in Accumulo.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it's back-compatible, yeah. the main bugaboo was if they used the 'enabled.indices' options.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we do have a couple of places where we used that... @jnh5y see Alec's email 😢 We should probably at least try to do real release notes like accumulo where we can mention things like this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

just to clarify it will work with enabled.indices - that just was where the complexity in code came in.

@jnh5y
Copy link
Contributor

jnh5y commented Jun 10, 2016

Ok, looks good to me.

@jahhulbert-ccri
Copy link
Contributor

so far looks good. i'll try it with an old one just to make sure.

@jnh5y
Copy link
Contributor

jnh5y commented Jun 13, 2016

@jahhulbert-ccri ok, great; then I'm assigning the PR to you.

@anthonyccri anthonyccri merged commit 27faaac into locationtech:master Jun 18, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants