Skip to content

Conversation

Abacn
Copy link
Contributor

@Abacn Abacn commented Jan 14, 2025

Workaround an unknown side input bug reported internally

internal ref: 373833916

Please add a meaningful description for your change here


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, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
  • Update CHANGES.md with 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)

Build python source distribution and wheels
Python tests
Java tests
Go tests

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the build label Jan 14, 2025
@@ -485,7 +485,7 @@ public WriteResult expandUntriggered(PCollection<KV<DestinationT, ElementT>> inp
// loading.
PCollectionTuple partitions =
results
.apply("ReifyResults", new ReifyAsIterable<>())
.apply("ReifyResults", new CombineAsIterable<>())
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This won't have any output for an empty PCollection (whereas ReifyAsIterable does).

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Abacn Abacn Jan 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes that's right, and it fails a unit test (changed below).

honestly I'm not fully understand the implication of this change of behavior. One thing I could wonder is that if a pipeline didn't have any input before, it would still create an empty table; while now it does not.

Could this be a problem?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this could be a problem. (I'm also concerned because the underlying issue is still there...)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The customer is waiting for this workaround. @Abacn possible to add one option to enable this workaround?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes we can add a pipeline option if choose to not make it default. Then customer could still face the issue until enable this option.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's now guarded by a pipeline option "--groupFilesFileLoad". PTAL, thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @robertwb for label java.
R: @damccorm for label build.
R: @chamikaramj for label io.

Available commands:

  • stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
  • remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
  • waiting 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).

Copy link
Contributor

@liferoad liferoad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we add this to CHANGES.md and mention the user should use this option if they experience any issues with BatchLoads?

@Abacn Abacn merged commit 56f6e6a into apache:master Jan 30, 2025
18 checks passed
@Abacn Abacn deleted the reifytocombine branch January 30, 2025 15:58
tomstepp pushed a commit to tomstepp/apache-beam that referenced this pull request Feb 3, 2025
* Change Reify.asIterable to GBK in BigQueryIO File loads

* trigger postcommit

* the change is only effective when explicitly enabled

* update CHANGES.md
VardhanThigle pushed a commit to VardhanThigle/beam that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2025
* Change Reify.asIterable to GBK in BigQueryIO File loads

* trigger postcommit

* the change is only effective when explicitly enabled

* update CHANGES.md
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants