Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bump spark-sql version to 3.2.0 #3041

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 3, 2021
Merged

bump spark-sql version to 3.2.0 #3041

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 3, 2021

Conversation

lmsurpre
Copy link
Member

@lmsurpre lmsurpre commented Nov 24, 2021

its only a provided dependency, but there's a few vulnerabilities in the transitive dependencies for 3.1.0.

dependabot opened this for it in the past #2985 ...we closed but I forget why

Signed-off-by: Lee Surprenant lmsurpre@us.ibm.com

its only a provided dependency, but there's a few vulnerabilities in the transitive dependencies for 3.1.0

Signed-off-by: Lee Surprenant <lmsurpre@us.ibm.com>
@prb112
Copy link
Contributor

prb112 commented Nov 24, 2021

yeah - it may not work properly with our environment. If you've tested this. I'll approve, I'd rather not accept it until it's tested

@lmsurpre
Copy link
Member Author

I ran the following local smoketest:

  1. marked the spark and stocator dependencies as runtime (instead of provided)
  2. deployed to a local test server
  3. configured the server with an ibm-cos storageProvider that has "enableParquet": true1
  4. loaded a db with 1690 practitioner resources,
  5. ran an export with _outputFormat=application/fhir+parquet and _type=Practitioner

I noted this, but I think we had the same warning with 3.1.0 and I don’t think there’s much we could do about it:

Illegal reflective access by org.apache.spark.unsafe.Platform (file:/Users/lmsurpre/.m2/repository/org/apache/spark/spark-unsafe_2.12/3.2.0/spark-unsafe_2.12-3.2.0.jar) to constructor java.nio.DirectByteBuffer(long,int)

I also noted some odd logging behavior, but I'm not sure if thats a regression either...still investigating.

Signed-off-by: Lee Surprenant <lmsurpre@us.ibm.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@prb112 prb112 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - discussed with Lee offline

@lmsurpre
Copy link
Member Author

lmsurpre commented Dec 3, 2021

I confirmed that the odd logging behavior is not a regression (we get the same odd behavior with the current versions).
I opened #3070 for that one and I think we're good to merge this in the meantime.

@lmsurpre lmsurpre added the dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file label Dec 3, 2021
@lmsurpre lmsurpre merged commit 7868c8a into main Dec 3, 2021
@lmsurpre lmsurpre deleted the lmsurpre-patch-1 branch December 3, 2021 13:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants