kevinjqliu commented on code in PR #1879:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/pull/1879#discussion_r2027360226
##########
tests/integration/test_writes/test_writes.py:
##########
@@ -262,6 +262,100 @@ def test_summaries(spark: SparkSession, session_catalog:
Catalog, arrow_table_wi
}
[email protected]
+def test_summaries_partial_overwrite(spark: SparkSession, session_catalog:
Catalog) -> None:
+ identifier = "default.test_summaries_partial_overwrite"
Review Comment:
should we just add your jupyter notebook example to `dev/provision.py` and
verify that the 2 operations produce the same snapshot summary?
##########
pyiceberg/table/update/snapshot.py:
##########
@@ -236,7 +236,6 @@ def _summary(self, snapshot_properties: Dict[str, str] =
EMPTY_DICT) -> Summary:
return update_snapshot_summaries(
summary=Summary(operation=self._operation, **ssc.build(),
**snapshot_properties),
previous_summary=previous_snapshot.summary if previous_snapshot is
not None else None,
- truncate_full_table=self._operation == Operation.OVERWRITE,
Review Comment:
do you know if there's a test to verify that full table overwrite still has
the correct snapshot summary?
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
