apache
Return methods in a lexicographical order from ReflectUtils.getMethods()
Fixes #30276. Returning methods in lexicographical order will prevent non-deterministic schema inference.
Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:
- [ ] Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example:
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. - [ ] Update
CHANGES.mdwith noteworthy changes. - [ ] If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.
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.
Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment assign set of reviewers
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
This pull request has been marked as stale due to 60 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the [email protected] list. Thank you for your contributions.
Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:
R: @m-trieu for label java.
Available commands:
stop reviewer notifications- opt out of the automated review toolingremind me after tests pass- tag the comment author after tests passwaiting on author- shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)
The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).
How does it work for update compatibility if I add a new field to my POJO? I added Reuven because he knows the most about this.
Dataflow keeps track of the old and new schema, and will match up fields to ensure that the encoding position remains the same even if the field orders are different. This is the reason why schemas have an encoding position in addition to a field number.
Sorting the fields is not needed for update, and in fact is not a solution since Dataflow supports adding new fields to a schema via update (if we relied on sorting the new field would end up in the middle of the list, and would break update).
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 7:53 AM Kenn Knowles @.***> wrote:
How does it work for update compatibility if I add a new field to my POJO? I added Reuven because he knows the most about this.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/30279#issuecomment-2082958359, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFAYJVOTCZO2RRBFYYXKJZLY7ZNHNAVCNFSM6AAAAABDBXMF4GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOBSHE2TQMZVHE . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>
Excellent. I was worried this would cause update incompatibility just as you described. But it sounds like it is fine. 👍
Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:
R: @damondouglas for label java.
Available commands:
stop reviewer notifications- opt out of the automated review toolingremind me after tests pass- tag the comment author after tests passwaiting on author- shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)
Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: requested by reviewer
After talking to @reuvenlax we concluded that this might not be the best way to solve this issue. We'll try to reproduce this problem first and then try to address the root cause. I'll close this PR for now.