Open vibhatha opened 1 year ago
Hi @vibhatha, just reviewing error logs and error mention that arrow-memory-netty is not available on the nightly packages, and that is true, as you can see at https://nightlies.apache.org/arrow/java/org/apache/arrow/arrow-memory-netty/, which is very rare, but it needs to be reviewed.
Alternatively, you could start using the 14.0.0-SNAPSHOT version which can be configured in the arrow-cookbook/java/source/conf.py file as follows:
if arrow_nightly and arrow_nightly != '0':
version = "14.0.0-SNAPSHOT"
else:
version = "13.0.0"
Hi @vibhatha, just reviewing error logs and error mention that arrow-memory-netty is not available on the nightly packages, and that is true, as you can see at https://nightlies.apache.org/arrow/java/org/apache/arrow/arrow-memory-netty/, which is very rare, but it needs to be reviewed.
Alternatively, you could start using the 14.0.0-SNAPSHOT version which can be configured in the arrow-cookbook/java/source/conf.py file as follows:
if arrow_nightly and arrow_nightly != '0': version = "14.0.0-SNAPSHOT" else: version = "13.0.0"
If I understand correctly, should I make that change in this PR itself? Or should we create a separate PR for that?
Hi @vibhatha, just reviewing error logs and error mention that arrow-memory-netty is not available on the nightly packages, and that is true, as you can see at https://nightlies.apache.org/arrow/java/org/apache/arrow/arrow-memory-netty/, which is very rare, but it needs to be reviewed. Alternatively, you could start using the 14.0.0-SNAPSHOT version which can be configured in the arrow-cookbook/java/source/conf.py file as follows:
if arrow_nightly and arrow_nightly != '0': version = "14.0.0-SNAPSHOT" else: version = "13.0.0"
If I understand correctly, should I make that change in this PR itself? Or should we create a separate PR for that?
This change is being added to https://github.com/apache/arrow-cookbook/pull/320 as well, but it is true, this must have been created independently.
@davisusanibar sounds good and I will rebase once this PR is merged. Thank you :+1:
@danepitkin @davisusanibar This PR is ready for review, please take a look.
@danepitkin I am addressing the reviews and thank you for reviewing this PR.
@danepitkin I am working on updating this PR for Java doctests. I will address the reviews as well.
@lidavidm thanks a lot for your feedback. I will address these.
Given we have no roundtrip examples at all, I don't see why we are starting with dictionaries vs a simpler type
Given we have no roundtrip examples at all, I don't see why we are starting with dictionaries vs a simpler type
Could it be consider as a simpler type https://github.com/apache/arrow-cookbook/pull/325?
Given we have no roundtrip examples at all, I don't see why we are starting with dictionaries vs a simpler type
Good point. Although, I am merely picking up an existing issue.
This PR closes https://github.com/apache/arrow-cookbook/issues/213