Github user twalthr closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user twalthr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-140744071
I think more tests for the Table API can not harm. I will adapt the PR
after #1134 is merged.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-140757194
The test is included in the PR #1134.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user fhueske commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-140773221
So this PR can be closed?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user chiwanpark commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-137922910
After merging this, we should update `CsvInputFormat`. Currently, we create
`Field` objects in `open` method of `CsvInputFormat`. With this PR, we don't
need to
Github user twalthr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#discussion_r38529490
--- Diff:
flink-staging/flink-table/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/table/test/PojoGroupingITCase.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed
Github user tillrohrmann commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#discussion_r37983471
--- Diff:
flink-staging/flink-table/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/table/test/PojoGroupingITCase.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+/*
+ *
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-125507699
Why do we need to serialize the TypeInformation in the first place?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
GitHub user twalthr opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943
[FLINK-2410] [java api] PojoTypeInfo is not completely serializable
The type `java.reflect.Field` is not Serializable and has to be serialized
manually, which was not implemented until now in
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-125191411
Thank you for the PR.
Can you add a test case validating the fix?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user twalthr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-125203795
I have created a separate test. But the idea is good. I will create a Table
API example from my current code.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user twalthr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-125191888
The lines are basically copied from PojoComparator but yes I can add a test
case for it ;)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/943#issuecomment-125192186
I would just use the Table API example you've posted in the JIRA and add
another IT case for the Table API
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
13 matches
Mail list logo
