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

(#1982) Publish Spark Operator image for multiple Spark versions on r… #2024

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

peter-mcclonski
Copy link
Contributor

…elease

🛑 Important:

Please open an issue to discuss significant work before you start. We appreciate your contributions and don't want your efforts to go to waste!

For guidelines on how to contribute, please review the CONTRIBUTING.md document.

Purpose of this PR

Support multiple versions of Spark with our release process.

Proposed changes:

  • Builds and pushes Spark Operator built on Sparks 3.5.1, 3.4.3, and 3.3.4 as part of the release process.

Change Category

Indicate the type of change by marking the applicable boxes:

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that could affect existing functionality)
  • Documentation update

Rationale

See #1982

Checklist

Before submitting your PR, please review the following:

  • I have conducted a self-review of my own code.
  • I have updated documentation accordingly.
  • I have added tests that prove my changes are effective or that my feature works.
  • Existing unit tests pass locally with my changes.

Additional Notes

Not sure of the best way to validate this action works prior to merging. Would be eager for feedback on testing it.

…ons on release

Signed-off-by: Peter Jablonski <mcclonski.peter@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter McClonski <mcclonski.peter@gmail.com>
@@ -56,6 +56,10 @@ jobs:
strategy:
fail-fast: false
matrix:
spark_version:
- 3.5.1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't like repeating this between the two jobs, but it was the least complex solution.

version: 1.2.15
appVersion: v1beta2-1.4.6-3.5.0
version: 1.2.16
appVersion: v1beta2-1.4.6
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I: The Spark version is separate from the Operator version. New image tag format is consistent with the old one, but with parameterized Spark version rather than hardcoding it here.

Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vara-bonthu

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@vara-bonthu
Copy link
Contributor

@peter-mcclonski Please resolve conflicts. Will review and merge the PR

Copy link
Contributor

@yuchaoran2011 yuchaoran2011 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The PR itself looks good. But I wonder if there really is a use case for building a separate image for each version. @peter-mcclonski Have you run into cases where, for example, operator built with Spark 3.4.3 and 3.5.1 result in difference behaviors?

@peter-mcclonski
Copy link
Contributor Author

The PR itself looks good. But I wonder if there really is a use case for building a separate image for each version. @peter-mcclonski Have you run into cases where, for example, operator built with Spark 3.4.3 and 3.5.1 result in difference behaviors?

I actually have never tried it-- internally, we've always made a habit of aligning our Operator version to whatever version of spark we're using. If it doesn't actually need to be aligned (which I recall you mentioning in the first community call), then you're right, this may not be a value-add.

@vara-bonthu
Copy link
Contributor

Let's keep this open and see if users show interest in this feature. If we receive more thumbs up, we can maintain it; otherwise, we may consider de-scoping it.

@josecsotomorales
Copy link
Contributor

This is great! @peter-mcclonski I think we should update the version matrix here: https://github.com/kubeflow/spark-operator?tab=readme-ov-file#version-matrix

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.

4 participants