[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-2680?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13268169#comment-13268169
 ] 

Jonathan Coveney commented on PIG-2680:
---------------------------------------

Andy,

I am testing this now and it looks good. One thing you still need to do is 
update the comments in TOBAG, because it explicitly makes note of the fact that 
if the schema of the tuples does not agree, that it will return a null schema. 
Now, it will take the first one.

Thanks,
Jon
                
> TOBAG output schema reporting
> -----------------------------
>
>                 Key: PIG-2680
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-2680
>             Project: Pig
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: internal-udfs
>    Affects Versions: 0.10.0
>            Reporter: Andy Schlaikjer
>         Attachments: fixes_tobag_input_schema_validation.patch
>
>
> TOBAG only reports an output schema beyond {{{(NULL)}}} when all input field 
> schemas match deeply, including field schema aliases. This seems wrong to me. 
> Shouldn't it just require recursive type equality?
> For relevant code, see:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/pig/tags/release-0.9.2/src/org/apache/pig/builtin/TOBAG.java?view=markup#l142
> {code:java}
>     private boolean nullEquals(Schema currentSchema, Schema newSchema) {
>         if(currentSchema == null){
>             if(newSchema != null){
>                 return false;
>             }
>             return true;
>         }
>         return currentSchema.equals(newSchema);
>     }
> {code}
> The included patch modifies the return line to use 
> {{Schema.equals(currentSchema, newSchema, false, true)}} to avoid alias 
> matching requirement.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Reply via email to