Make Record purely position based
#1768
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This aligns the implementation with Java. We had the keywords there mostly for the tests, but they should not be used, and it seems like that's already the case :'( I was undecided if the costs of this PR (all the changes), are worth it, but I see more PRs using the Record in a bad way (example apache#1743) that might lead to very subtle bugs where the position might sometime change based on the ordering of the dict.
Fokko
changed the title
Record purely position based
kevinzwang
pushed a commit
to Eventual-Inc/Daft
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2025
Don't use internal fields :) I want to remove this one in apache/iceberg-python#1768. It should be okay since the `Record` also has a `__len__`.
kevinzwang
pushed a commit
to Eventual-Inc/Daft
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2025
Don't use internal fields :) I want to remove this one in apache/iceberg-python#1768. It should be okay since the `Record` also has a `__len__`.
…e-keywords-from-record
…e-keywords-from-record
kevinjqliu
approved these changes
Apr 19, 2025
| @@ -792,6 +792,5 @@ def test_partition_key( | |||
| snapshot.manifests(iceberg_table.io)[0].fetch_manifest_entry(iceberg_table.io)[0].data_file.file_path | |||
| ) | |||
| # Special characters in partition value are sanitized when written to the data file's partition field | |||
| sanitized_record = Record(**{make_compatible_name(k): v for k, v in vars(expected_partition_record).items()}) | |||
| assert spark_partition_for_justification == sanitized_record | |||
| assert spark_partition_for_justification == expected_partition_record | |||
| self[idx] = d | ||
| @classmethod | ||
| def _bind(cls, struct: StructType, **arguments: Any) -> Self: | ||
| return cls(*[arguments[field.name] if field.name in arguments else field.initial_default for field in struct.fields]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah ok initial_default is None if not set 👍
pyiceberg/avro/reader.py
Outdated
| "field_readers", | ||
| "create_struct", | ||
| "struct", | ||
| "_create_with_keyword", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: looks like we got rid of _create_with_keyword
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice catch, saves some memory 👍
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.
This aligns the implementation with Java.
We had the keywords there mostly for the tests, but they should not be used, and it seems like that's already the case :'( I was undecided if the costs of this PR (all the changes), are worth it, but I see more PRs using the Record in a bad way (example #1743) that might lead to very subtle bugs where the position might sometime change based on the ordering of the dict.
Blocked by Eventual-Inc/Daft#3917