Closed gregw18 closed 3 years ago
this is a good test. We can definitely add it.
I was considering to introduce #446. It may be a better behavior for the regex matching. What do you think?
That would definitely simplify my test, and better match how I expected that parameter to work, but my experience in this area is limited so my opinion isn't particularly informed! I hope that there aren't many people relying on the current behavior.
Yes. This is an unpleasant change short term and may break some people code. That being said, that's the right behavior to have long term.
It definitely follows the principle of least surprise, at least to a long time dos and windows programmer. I'm also new to contributing to open source projects. Should I wait for #446 to be merged to master and then update my test?
Sorry for a delayed reply. Was travelling. I'll try to land 446 soon and have a release within couple of days.
Since #446 has landed on master, is ti ok to close this one?
I apologize for my confusing commit messages, but the purpose of these tests was to address #257 - I just happened to run into and get surprised by the schema_fields behavior. I hope that these tests are still useful.
Should we continue working on this PR? If yes, can you please rebase?
Updating this and #444 have been on my list, but I needed the reminder...
Merging #445 into master will decrease coverage by
0.21%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #445 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.98% 85.77% -0.22%
==========================================
Files 81 79 -2
Lines 4311 4190 -121
Branches 674 665 -9
==========================================
- Hits 3707 3594 -113
+ Misses 499 494 -5
+ Partials 105 102 -3
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
petastorm/unischema.py | 94.58% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
petastorm/spark/spark_dataset_converter.py | ||
petastorm/spark/__init__.py |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e3acecf...a31035d. Read the comment docs.
Can you please rebase? Have a conflict with master for some reason...
Please let me know if this still generates a conflict, or is just too ugly (5000 commits for 2 functions!) and I will cut and paste the changes into a new PR. (I've learned a lot about git since starting this and hopefully will be cleaner going forward.)
Hmmm. Github still see a conflict. You don't see the same message?
Thanks for the screenshot - I had assumed that I wasn't looking in the right spot for the error. Github is telling me that there are no conflicts, with the caveat that I don't have write access and so can't merge pull requests. I hope that it's ok, but I've created a clean PR, #486, to replace this one. Hopefully it will let you land this and not spend any more time on it!
Awesome! Landed the new PR. Thanks for the tests!
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:49 AM gregw18 notifications@github.com wrote:
Thanks for the screenshot - I had assumed that I wasn't looking in the right spot for the error. Github is telling me that there are no conflicts, with the caveat that I don't have write access and so can't merge pull requests. [image: image] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__user-2Dimages.githubusercontent.com_50498452_74059415-2Dffef4300-2D49b5-2D11ea-2D8c76-2D45847e861836.png&d=DwMCaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=9ZOlsbdIJ9b5MqHnADbKZA&m=lsLbG13zRSj0GGt1J6zIoKJnRlJOEfgceRLgboGI5QQ&s=ckiopI5g-8cBZe1zf725TTyKG5fjzg13iWUE_idVJEM&e= I hope that it's ok, but I've created a clean PR, #486 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_uber_petastorm_pull_486&d=DwMCaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=9ZOlsbdIJ9b5MqHnADbKZA&m=lsLbG13zRSj0GGt1J6zIoKJnRlJOEfgceRLgboGI5QQ&s=TEbzBRiOIkGJ1TwGCtVVXu6Br49cUQlayyjwjk5Dhjo&e=, to replace this one. Hopefully it will let you land this and not spend any more time on it!
— You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_uber_petastorm_pull_445-3Femail-5Fsource-3Dnotifications-26email-5Ftoken-3DAAZIEDH3DKVYIID5JVCK3D3RBW3LXA5CNFSM4JKZT5J2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELELRMA-23issuecomment-2D583579824&d=DwMCaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=9ZOlsbdIJ9b5MqHnADbKZA&m=lsLbG13zRSj0GGt1J6zIoKJnRlJOEfgceRLgboGI5QQ&s=c2WtmZj4WPJfz_AOOu9idPdVCuA2iyaPbUCeNhKQwa8&e=, or unsubscribe https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AAZIEDEX7M7AVDF65NQOZ5TRBW3LXANCNFSM4JKZT5JQ&d=DwMCaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=9ZOlsbdIJ9b5MqHnADbKZA&m=lsLbG13zRSj0GGt1J6zIoKJnRlJOEfgceRLgboGI5QQ&s=kFWHBUzUG9AOTQA6oODrH9lHh8b1KSS-jzY203X42n4&e= .
Added tests for selecting specific columns and requesting invalid columns to test_parquet_reader. Modified specific column test to request specific column names, rather than regex patterns, so could select even columns rather than odd, so would always find at least one. Added comment explaining why regex patterns were a problem.