-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.5k
Remove temporary KafkaSourceDescriptor.create function #36357
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Assigning reviewers: R: @kennknowles for label java. Note: If you would like to opt out of this review, comment Available commands:
The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments). |
|
Note for reviewers: I can't recall if these objects get serialized into the pipeline graph, but if that's the case then we can't remove this static method because the auto-generated |
|
I think they may be both serialized to the graph and shipped in Kafka SDF using SerializableCoder (haven't checked). So, yes, this could be an issue. |
|
@kennknowles So, could you please tell me what should I do now? If this change breaks something, it would be better to just comment not to change this due to backward-compatibility, and just keep use This PR might mitigate potential issues in any way. Please feel free to close this PR if needed. |
|
Yea it is pretty hard to test. You would have to start a pipeline with the released version of the SDK and then use this version of the SDK to update. Right now we don't have good automation around it in the Beam project. It is OK to break update compatibility but we have to put in a flag like here: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28853/files#diff-b8cf6c3051a36c566f2f28f525449f456a88b05b3b4c17c814e6a55ba2ce36e9R77-R90 |
|
Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @kennknowles @Dippatel98 |
|
Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment R: @Abacn for label java. Available commands:
|
|
Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @Abacn @johnjcasey |
|
Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment R: @chamikaramj for label java. Available commands:
|
|
Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @chamikaramj @Abacn |
|
Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment R: @kennknowles for label java. Available commands:
|
|
Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @kennknowles @johnjcasey |
|
Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment R: @ahmedabu98 for label java. Available commands:
|
|
Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @ahmedabu98 @chamikaramj |
|
Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment R: @Abacn for label java. Available commands:
|
|
Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @Abacn @johnjcasey |
|
Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment R: @kennknowles for label java. Available commands:
|
|
R: @kennknowles to silence the bot I generally agree with the comments above though - I don't think this is update-safe in its current form; we should either do nothing (which is probably fine here) or follow Kenn's comments here - #36357 (comment) (this may add more complexity than it is worth though) |
|
Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: review requested by someone other than the bot, ceding control. If you'd like to restart, comment |
|
I agree with all the comments above, so please feel free to close this PR if needed. |
In b609aab (#12518), it is added to make a workaround for bug in AutoValueSchema. It seems fixed now (#12520), so I suggest to remove this function.
Feel free to close this PR if I got something wrong.
I found this code change by investigating my issue, which is #36356. When updating Dataflow job, it occurred NullPointerException because of topic is null. (Drain and re-deploy worked well, but it happens only in existing job update scenarioes)
I doubt this code change would resolve the original issue, but I believe this change might be needed in any way.
Related PRs -> #36295
Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:
addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, commentfixes #<ISSUE NUMBER>instead.CHANGES.mdwith noteworthy changes.See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.
To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md
GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)
See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.