[SPARK-48754] Further refactoring to make the code more stable and accessible #33
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
grundprinzip
force-pushed
the
client-refactoring
branch
from
b9fd35a
to
2e0fe70
Compare
grundprinzip
changed the title
HyukjinKwon
changed the title
HyukjinKwon
changed the title
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2024
|
Merged to master. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Refactor the internal client-related functions and structs so that we no longer expose the GRPC protocol directly to the Spark Session and the DataFrame classes. In addition, this adds additional tests to increase the overall coverage to 60%.
Why are the changes needed?
To be able to have proper, centralized retry logic, we need to be able to decouple the consumers from the underlying GRPC stream.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?