Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-34711][SQL][TESTS] Exercise code-gen enable/disable code paths for SHJ in join test suites - #31806
Closed
c21 wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
[SPARK-34711][SQL][TESTS] Exercise code-gen enable/disable code paths for SHJ in join test suites#31806c21 wants to merge 1 commit into
c21 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
c21
commented
Mar 11, 2021
ContributorAuthor
cc @dongjoon-hyun could you help take a look when you have time, thanks. |
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
Mar 11, 2021
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, @c21 .
+1, LGTM. (Pending CIs)
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Mar 11, 2021
Member
This is a test PR and I verified this manually. Merged to master/3.1. |
dongjoon-hyun pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2021
… for SHJ in join test suites ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Per comment in #31802 (comment) , we would like to exercise whole stage code-gen enabled and disabled code paths in join unit test suites. This is for better test coverage of shuffled hash join. ### Why are the changes needed? Better test coverage. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing and added unit tests here. Closes#31806 from c21/test-minor. Authored-by: Cheng Su <chengsu@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> (cherry picked from commit 9aa8f06) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
AmplabJenkins
commented
Mar 11, 2021
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
AmplabJenkins
commented
Mar 11, 2021
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed): |
c21
commented
Mar 11, 2021
ContributorAuthor
Thank you @dongjoon-hyun for review! |
flyrain pushed a commit
to flyrain/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 21, 2021
… for SHJ in join test suites ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Per comment in apache#31802 (comment) , we would like to exercise whole stage code-gen enabled and disabled code paths in join unit test suites. This is for better test coverage of shuffled hash join. ### Why are the changes needed? Better test coverage. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing and added unit tests here. Closesapache#31806 from c21/test-minor. Authored-by: Cheng Su <chengsu@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> (cherry picked from commit 9aa8f06) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Per comment in #31802 (comment) , we would like to exercise whole stage code-gen enabled and disabled code paths in join unit test suites. This is for better test coverage of shuffled hash join.
Why are the changes needed?
Better test coverage.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing and added unit tests here.