voonhous commented on code in PR #19849:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/19849#discussion_r3951046054
##########
hudi-spark-datasource/hudi-spark-common/src/main/scala/org/apache/hudi/HoodieBaseRelation.scala:
##########
@@ -252,19 +241,7 @@ abstract class HoodieBaseRelation(val sqlContext:
SQLContext,
HoodieFileIndex(sparkSession, metaClient, Some(tableStructSchema),
optParams,
FileStatusCache.getOrCreate(sparkSession), shouldIncludeLogFiles())
- lazy val tableState: HoodieTableState = {
- val recordMergerImpls =
optParams.get(HoodieWriteConfig.RECORD_MERGE_IMPL_CLASSES.key()).map(impls =>
ConfigUtils.split2List(impls).asScala.toList).getOrElse(List.empty)
- // Subset of the state of table's configuration as of at the time of the
query
- HoodieTableState(tablePath = basePath.toString,
- latestCommitTimestamp = queryTimestamp,
- recordKeyField = recordKeyField,
- orderingFields = orderingFields,
- usesVirtualKeys = !tableConfig.populateMetaFields(),
- metadataConfig = fileIndex.getMetadataConfig,
Review Comment:
Reopening for visibility rather than to block.
The `HoodieTableState` thread landed on accepting a documented source- and
binary-compatibility break, so scoping out this much smaller narrowing reads a
little inconsistent. And as it stands `testGetMetadataConfigReturnsFieldValue`
now reflectively sets a field and asserts the getter hands it back, with no
production caller behind either.
Could we fold the `@Getter(AccessLevel.PROTECTED)` change plus that test's
removal into this PR? If it really is separate, could the PR body name the
follow-up so it does not get lost?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
