amogh-jahagirdar commented on code in PR #15854: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15854#discussion_r3082542695
########## core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/TrackedFileStruct.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,737 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.iceberg; + +import java.nio.ByteBuffer; +import java.util.Arrays; +import java.util.List; +import java.util.Set; +import org.apache.iceberg.relocated.com.google.common.base.Preconditions; +import org.apache.iceberg.stats.BaseContentStats; +import org.apache.iceberg.stats.ContentStats; +import org.apache.iceberg.types.Types; +import org.apache.iceberg.util.ArrayUtil; +import org.apache.iceberg.util.ByteBuffers; + +/** Mutable {@link StructLike} implementation of {@link TrackedFile}. */ +class TrackedFileStruct implements TrackedFile, StructLike { + private static final FileContent[] FILE_CONTENT_VALUES = FileContent.values(); + private static final EntryStatus[] STATUS_VALUES = EntryStatus.values(); + + private TrackingStruct tracking; + private FileContent contentType = FileContent.DATA; + private String location; + private FileFormat fileFormat; + private long recordCount; + private long fileSizeInBytes; + private Integer specId; Review Comment: There's a discrepancy in the modeling on the original proposal and the addition in the latest tab, where the spec ID in the original proposal was required and in the latest tab it's optional. We can discuss on the doc but since it was brought up here, after a bit of thought I feel like there's a reasonable argument that the spec ID should be required. The original intent of it being optional was that we're moving away from a model where a given manifest is bound to a particular partition spec. That still applies but from a writer requirement perspective, I think it's best to just require writing the unpartitioned spec ID in case there's a manifest with some "mixed" specs. Sure we definitley could just leave it as null, but I wonder if it leads to ambiguity between the "null" case and "unpartitioned" case. It may be better to just have it be explicit. In other words, it seems reasonable to me to just say "Manifests must have the unpartitioned spec if the entries span 1 or more multiple partition specs"; if there are multiple entries with different specs, it seems reasonable to just say logically that it is unpartitioned. I'm not as strongly opinionated on this one, I'm mostly just biasing towards simplicity of client expectations on the read side of things. We don't have to worry about "What does it mean if it's null"? -- 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]
