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

Avoid length-prefix-bytes substitutions for Flink boundaries. #31579

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 9, 2024

Conversation

robertwb
Copy link
Contributor

The runner infrastructure typically substitutes "unknown" coders for length-prefixed bytes, but for elements going into or out of the Beam pipeline fragment we want the actual objects. Fortunately, we know these coders are known on the Runner side as well as the SDK side as we have them in hand there.


Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

  • Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
  • Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
  • If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

Build python source distribution and wheels
Python tests
Java tests
Go tests

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

The runner infrastructure typically substitutes "unknown" coders for
length-prefixed bytes, but for elements going into or out of the
Beam pipeline fragment we want the actual objects.  Fortunately, we
know these coders are known on the Runner side as well as the SDK
side as we have them in hand there.
Copy link
Contributor

Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment assign set of reviewers

@chamikaramj
Copy link
Contributor

Ready for review ?

@robertwb
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, this is ready for review. Would you be willing to take a look.

@robertwb
Copy link
Contributor Author

robertwb commented Jul 8, 2024

R: @kennknowles

@robertwb robertwb requested a review from kennknowles July 8, 2024 23:13
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jul 8, 2024

Stopping reviewer notifications for this pull request: review requested by someone other than the bot, ceding control

@robertwb robertwb merged commit dda0fbf into apache:master Jul 9, 2024
21 checks passed
Polber pushed a commit to Polber/beam that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants