Thanks everyone! @David, we prefer to already merge the existing PRs and then add the integration tests as soon as possible.
Em qua., 15 de dez. de 2021 às 11:11, David Li <lidav...@apache.org> escreveu: > My vote: +1 > > The vote passes with three +1 (binding) votes, one +1 (non binding) vote, > and one -0.5 (binding) vote. > > However, we will first merge into a separate branch and implement > integration tests before merging into the main branch. JIRA for integration > tests: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-15112 > > @Kyle I've created the branch flight-sql[1], would you prefer I merge in > your existing PRs, or would you prefer to create new PRs against that > branch (given you've already started on things)? > > On a side note - do we document the requirements for proposed additions > somewhere? (multiple implementations, integration tests) It would be nice > to have it on hand for reference. > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/flight-sql > > -David > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 11:25, Kyle Porter wrote: > > Thanks David, > > > > Yes, the team is actually already looking at adding the cross language > > tests apologies for not communicating that earlier > > > > On Mon., Dec. 13, 2021, 12:18 p.m. David Li, <lidav...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > Are any other PMC members able to look at this? > > > > > > > > > OK by me. We could also create a branch to merge the PRs add the > > > > > > integration tests, and then merge all at once. > > > > > > Kyle, is this an ok solution? Would you & your team be able to get > > > integration tests done reasonably soon? > > > > > > There's some setup for Flight integration tests already: > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/11be9c542b9699b7eb4ae1656775c9b30639e415/dev/archery/archery/integration/runner.py#L375-L385 > > > > > > So what would be needed are: > > > > > > 1. Enable Flight SQL for the integration test container > > > 2. Link the integration test client/server to Flight SQL > > > 3. Add one or more test scenarios in the integration test runner, and > in > > > the integration test client/server > > > > > > It might be acceptable to just hardcode expected requests/responses > > > instead of integrating SQLite/Derby (as was done for the individual > > > language tests) since the focus should be on just the protocol and not > > > particular implementations. > > > > > > -David > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021, at 16:21, Wes McKinney wrote: > > > > +1. Agree re: adding integration tests as soon as practical > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:21 AM Ravindra Pindikura < > ravin...@dremio.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:42 PM Micah Kornfield < > emkornfi...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that the C++ and Java components are in separate PRs, > would > > > it be > > > > > > > acceptable to add after the initial merge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK by me. We could also create a branch to merge the PRs add the > > > > > > integration tests, and then merge all at once. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 10:07 AM Kyle Porter < > ky...@bitquilltech.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that the C++ and Java components are in separate PRs, > would > > > it be > > > > > > > acceptable to add after the initial merge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kyle Porter* > > > > > > > CEO > > > > > > > Bit Quill Technologies Inc. > > > > > > > Office: +1.778.331.3355 | Direct: +1.604.441.7318 | > > > > > > ky...@bitquilltech.com > > > > > > > https://www.bitquill.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email message is for the sole use of the intended > > > recipient(s) and > > > > > > > may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > > > unauthorized > > > > > > > review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you > > > are not > > > > > > the > > > > > > > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email > and > > > destroy > > > > > > > all copies of the original message. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 2:03 PM Micah Kornfield < > > > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > There is not an integration test. Do we want to require > this? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It would be nice, I'm -0.5 vote without one. So if enough > PMC > > > members > > > > > > >> want to forgo the integration test the vote can still pass. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Is cross language testing something that's usually done? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes. One of the value propositions of Arrow is the > cross-language > > > > > > >> support. The community agreed to specification changes (and I > > > assumed > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> covers new specifications) need to have reference > implementations > > > in > > > > > > >> C++/Java with integration testing between the two. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 5:21 AM Kyle Porter < > > > ky...@bitquilltech.com > > > > > > >> .invalid> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The team initially developed the C++ client against the Java > > > server, > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > have done some cross language testing. It wasn't exhaustive > or > > > > > > >> methodical > > > > > > >> > in nature, however. Is cross language testing something > that's > > > usually > > > > > > >> > done? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed., Dec. 8, 2021, 9:18 a.m. David Li, < > lidav...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > There is not an integration test. Do we want to require > this? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Also CC @Kyle, in case your team has done such testing. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > It looks like Flight itself did not have a test for a few > > > versions > > > > > > >> after > > > > > > >> > > it was initially implemented. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > -David > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021, at 23:19, Micah Kornfield wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > Is there an integration test between the two languages? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 1:35 PM David Li < > > > lidav...@apache.org> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hello, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Kyle Porter, Rafael Telles, Ryan Nicholson, et. al. > have > > > > > > proposed > > > > > > >> > > adding > > > > > > >> > > > > Arrow Flight SQL, an experimental protocol for > > > interacting with > > > > > > >> SQL > > > > > > >> > > > > databases over Arrow Flight [1], as explained in a > > > previous ML > > > > > > >> > > discussion > > > > > > >> > > > > [2] and in a design document [3]. The purpose of > Flight > > > SQL is > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > allow > > > > > > >> > > > > clients and SQL database servers to communicate > (execute > > > > > > queries, > > > > > > >> > list > > > > > > >> > > > > tables, create prepared statements, etc.) using Arrow > and > > > Arrow > > > > > > >> > > Flight, by > > > > > > >> > > > > defining how to use Flight RPC methods, as well as > message > > > > > > >> payloads > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > use > > > > > > >> > > > > with those methods. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The new protocol definitions can be found at [4]. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > They have provided pull requests implementing the > server > > > and > > > > > > >> client > > > > > > >> > > > > protocol in C++ [5] and Java [6] which can be merged > > > after this > > > > > > >> > > addition is > > > > > > >> > > > > approved. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Please vote whether to accept this addition. The vote > > > will be > > > > > > open > > > > > > >> > for > > > > > > >> > > at > > > > > > >> > > > > least 72 hours. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]: https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/Flight.html > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]: > > > > > > >> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/s08b20ty756qq10zybd9qr0mm4jhmz93 > > > > > > >> > > > > [3]: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WQz32bDF06GgMdEYyzhakqUigBZkALFwDF2y1x3DTAI/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > >> > > > > Note that the protocol definitions in the design > document > > > are > > > > > > out > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> > > date; > > > > > > >> > > > > the canonical reference is in the pull requests. > > > > > > >> > > > > [4]: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/72ce72ba855909052f7dfb898105b419697157c8/format/FlightSql.proto > > > > > > >> > > > > [5]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11507 > > > > > > >> > > > > [6]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/10906 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > David > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > Ravindra. > > > > > > > > > >
