Just a note that I have preliminary example files up for geometry/geography
at [1]. We are planning some GeoArrow integration tests in geoarrow-data
[2] and will probably tack Parquet on to those as well as whatever system
the Parquet community comes up with.

Cheers,

-dewey

[1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/70
[2] https://github.com/geoarrow/geoarrow-data

On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 8:10 AM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think getting something setup, initially focused on variant (or geometry)
> and then expanding it over time makes lots of sense to me
>
> Andrew
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 5:36 PM Bryce Mecum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gang, that does seem like a good idea. Would there be any benefit
> > to trying that with the active spec changes like GEOMETRY/GEOGRAPHY or
> > VARIANT?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 9:14 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > As the troublemaker of the mentioned issue above, I'd say that
> > > a lesson learned is that we should publish example files for any
> > > new feature to the parquet-testing [1] repo for interoperability tests.
> > > Perhaps we need a staging repo/branch to store produced files
> > > during the active development. This may help catch common issues
> > > as early as possible.
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Gang
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 6:55 PM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is a great idea. There is a previous discussion about a similar
> > idea
> > > > here[1]
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, I think Alkis's sketch of the "carpenter" program would
> > have
> > > > caught this situation.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, improving interoperability testing like this is a key
> > step
> > > > towards being able to  reliably evolve the Parquet standard itself.
> > > >
> > > > Andrew
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/issues/441
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 3:49 PM Bryce Mecum <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Parquet community,
> > > > >
> > > > > The Arrow project recently fixed a bug [1] in its C++ Parquet
> > > > > implementation that was causing compliant Parquet files written by
> > > > > recent versions of parquet-rs [2] to be unreadable by the C++
> > > > > implementation due to differences in the implementation of
> Parquet’s
> > > > > SizeStatistics feature [3]. This also affected the Arrow libraries
> > > > > that bind to the C++ implementation, including PyArrow. The C++
> > > > > implementation has been patched [4] and a new Arrow release
> (19.0.1)
> > > > > is in the works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given this, I wanted to start a discussion about what kind of
> > > > > cross-implementation testing facilities may already exist in any of
> > > > > the Parquet implementations and what kind of testing facilities
> might
> > > > > be created to help catch situations like these.
> > > > >
> > > > > I’ll start off with my thoughts and encourage people to jump in:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The specific integration test that could have been run to catch
> > > > > this bug would be a test that used the Arrow 19.0.0 release
> candidate
> > > > > to read any Parquet file written by parquet-rs >=53.0. This would
> > have
> > > > > halted the release process. Should the Arrow project just add a CI
> > job
> > > > > like this and move on?
> > > > > 2. Testing every combination of Parquet format versions, feature
> > > > > toggles, implementations, and implementation versions is clearly
> too
> > > > > large a problem to solve so it might be best to start off with a
> > > > > narrow scope.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note that I've cross-posted this to the Apache Arrow mailing
> > > > > list. Please reply to the Apache Parquet post. I’m looking forward
> to
> > > > > hearing others’ thoughts and ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Bryce
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/45283
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/tree/main/parquet
> > > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/197
> > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/45285
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Reply via email to