I did more digging and I think the reason why queries work and views fail is that the ResolveViews rule is inserted at the end of the resolution batch. Table resolution runs first because of rule ordering, but there are cases where that isn't necessarily going to happen. Since it's a bad practice to rely on rule ordering within a batch, I think we need to fix this and move forward with a new RC. Please take a look at the PR.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 10:53 AM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: > I opened a PR that I think will fix this to get feedback on the approach: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9853 > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 10:36 AM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: > >> -1 (binding) >> >> I'm hitting an exception when testing views that prevents loading tables >> in Spark. The problem is that the REST catalog I'm using is a view catalog, >> but the underlying REST service does not support views. As a result, when >> `loadView` is called, it results in an error instead of >> `NoSuchViewException`. That error is uncaught and stops SQL query from >> running, even though a later `loadTable` check will work. >> >> I'm looking into why I can read tables normally and why this appears to >> fail when the load is in a view, but I want to highlight this as a blocker >> since the vote is otherwise passing. >> >> Otherwise, this looks good: >> - Verified signature, checksums >> - Ran license checks >> - Built and tested >> - Ran manual checks in Spark 3.5 with views >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:19 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> Verified sigs/sums/licenses/build/test (Java 17) >>> >>> One thing I noticed while testing views is that there is a >>> discrepancy between the spark catalog behavior of SHOW TABLES and what I >>> see using an Iceberg catalog (jdbc or REST). >>> >>> The "SHOW TABLES" command in spark catalog shows both tables and views, >>> but only shows tables for Iceberg catalogs. >>> >>> I couldn't find any tests that would indicate the expectation of one vs >>> the other and it appears that there is no standard behavior across >>> databases, but I was expecting behavior consistent with spark. >>> >>> I don't consider this a blocker since it's not defined, but I'm happy to >>> change my vote if others think differently. >>> >>> -Dan >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:18 PM Szehon Ho <szehon.apa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> - Verified signature >>>> - Verified checksum >>>> - RAT check >>>> - Compiled >>>> - Manually ran basic queries on Spark 3.5 >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 6:13 AM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>> >>>>> - Checked checksum and signature >>>>> - Ran a modified version of dbt-spark to take advantage of the views, >>>>> and it worked like a charm! 🥳 >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, Fokko >>>>> >>>>> Op vr 1 mrt 2024 om 06:43 schreef Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>>> Gentle reminder. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:34 PM Eduard Tudenhoefner < >>>>>> edu...@tabular.io> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * validated checksum and signature >>>>>>> * checked license docs & ran RAT checks >>>>>>> * ran build and tests with JDK11 >>>>>>> * built new docker images and ran through >>>>>>> https://iceberg.apache.org/spark-quickstart/ >>>>>>> * tested with Trino & Presto >>>>>>> * tested view support with Spark 3.5 + JDBC/REST catalog >>>>>>> * tested view behavior when creating/reading/dropping views from >>>>>>> Spark/Trino using the diff from >>>>>>> https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/19818 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eduard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 (non binding) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I checked: >>>>>>>> - Signature and checksum are OK >>>>>>>> - Build is OK on the source distribution >>>>>>>> - ASF headers are present >>>>>>>> - No binary file found in the source distribution >>>>>>>> - Tested on iceland (sample project) + trino and also JDBC Catalog >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks ! >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:16 PM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Hi Everyone, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I propose that we release the following RC as the official Apache >>>>>>>> Iceberg 1.5.0 release. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The commit ID is e39ec185d7879c1a310769d33e0b1b6ad12486a9 >>>>>>>> > * This corresponds to the tag: apache-iceberg-1.5.0-rc4 >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commits/apache-iceberg-1.5.0-rc4 >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/tree/e39ec185d7879c1a310769d33e0b1b6ad12486a9 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The release tarball, signature, and checksums are here: >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/iceberg/apache-iceberg-1.5.0-rc4 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > You can find the KEYS file here: >>>>>>>> > * https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/iceberg/KEYS >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Convenience binary artifacts are staged on Nexus. The Maven >>>>>>>> repository URL is: >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheiceberg-1158/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Please download, verify, and test. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Please vote in the next 72 hours. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Iceberg 1.5.0 >>>>>>>> > [ ] +0 >>>>>>>> > [ ] -1 Do not release this because... >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Only PMC members have binding votes, but other community members >>>>>>>> are encouraged to cast >>>>>>>> > non-binding votes. This vote will pass if there are 3 binding +1 >>>>>>>> votes and more binding >>>>>>>> > +1 votes than -1 votes. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > - Ajantha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Tabular >> > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Tabular > -- Ryan Blue Tabular
