CORE-8964 Add protobuf support to existing ducktape suite for schema evolution. #24998
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
oleiman
force-pushed
the
dlib/core-8964/proto-dt-tests
branch
from
def67d8 to
76ba6c1
Compare
CI test resultstest results on build#61476
test results on build#61487
test results on build#61530
|
oleiman
force-pushed
the
dlib/core-8964/proto-dt-tests
branch
from
76ba6c1 to
0f1d959
Compare
Specifically move producer and table verification methods onto AvroSchema in preparation for extending to something more generic (to support both avro & protobuf schemas) Signed-off-by: Oren Leiman <[email protected]>
Basically what it says on the tin. Avoid changing the semantics of any test cases, just add the ability to produce protobuf records of the same structure as the current avro ones. Signed-off-by: Oren Leiman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Oren Leiman <[email protected]>
oleiman
force-pushed
the
dlib/core-8964/proto-dt-tests
branch
from
0f1d959 to
676eef9
Compare
dotnwat
reviewed
Feb 4, 2025
Comment on lines
+71
to
+74
| fields="\n".join([ | ||
| f" {'optional ' if ver == ProtobufVersion.PROTO2 else ''}{p_fields[i]['type']} {p_fields[i]['name']} = {i+1};" | ||
| for i in range(len(p_fields)) | ||
| ]), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
l33t. this would almost have had me grabbing Jinja2 which is available in our deps (i think).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah lol, this would be totally untenable if the types were any more complicated. it's annoying enough translating between avro & proto & spark & trino that it's probably better to let sleeping dogs lie 🙃
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Someday this is going to get tricky with nested messages. I think it's worth testing nested messages, but we can do that later, can you make sure there is a Jira for it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah no doubt. i'm not totally convinced this is the place for those tests, but yeah I can make a Jira. Apropos of nothing, I suspect (for this and other similar features) that our coverage of various protobuf cases is pretty limited.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
rockwotj
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2025
Comment on lines
+71
to
+74
| fields="\n".join([ | ||
| f" {'optional ' if ver == ProtobufVersion.PROTO2 else ''}{p_fields[i]['type']} {p_fields[i]['name']} = {i+1};" | ||
| for i in range(len(p_fields)) | ||
| ]), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Someday this is going to get tricky with nested messages. I think it's worth testing nested messages, but we can do that later, can you make sure there is a Jira for it?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Test semantics don't change.
Backports Required
Release Notes