-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 598
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
refactor: deprecate old s3 and use use s3_v2 as default #17963
Merged
+46
−39
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8c3a130
replace s3 with s3_v2
bd119d1
update test
tabVersion 4bfcb76
fix
tabVersion ecbf7d8
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into tab/deprecate-s3-v1
tabVersion 39a053a
reject s3_v2 and tell users to use s3 instead
tabVersion 3795ca1
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into tab/deprecate-s3-v1
tabVersion 1f7492a
update test
tabVersion 33db483
rerun
tabVersion File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will these lines work for an existing job?
I don't think it's necessary to help users write their SQL from
connector='s3_v2'
to's3'
. While on the other hand, it is necessary to do this for an existing job persisted in Meta.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Only for new jobs. The existing jobs do not go through frontend again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
xxchan's proposal #17963 (review) sounds the most reasonable to me, that is, rejecting the
s3_v2
in frontend, but allow the existing ones. Can we do that?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BTW, I think the changes here are rewriting
s3
->s3_v2
, which is necessary.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Technically, yes.
My concern is from the product side. Rejecting a higher version but accepting a lower one seems strange. And what if we evolve a new s3 source, we'd call it s3_v2 or s3_v3?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Leaving
s3_v2
as an alias sounds acceptable to me, but please make sure all the docs & test cases are updated tos3
.