[SPARK-49413][CONNECT][SQL] Create a shared RuntimeConfig interface #47980
Conversation
|
Merging to master. |
| import org.apache.spark.sql.connect.client.SparkConnectClient | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Runtime configuration interface for Spark. To access this, use `SparkSession.conf`. | ||
| * | ||
| * @since 3.4.0 | ||
| */ | ||
| class RuntimeConfig private[sql] (client: SparkConnectClient) extends Logging { | ||
| class ConnectRuntimeConfig private[sql] (client: SparkConnectClient) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a breaking change at API level.
- I'm wondering if this is okay, @hvanhovell ?
- In addition, please fix
@since 3.4.0tag becauseConnectRuntimeConfigonly exists after 4.0.0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This class is not part of the public API. It is in internal, which is not public API. Regarding the tag I am not sure, that class has existed since 3.4.0. It just got renamed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To @hvanhovell . The previous RuntimeConfig is a documented public API.
| @@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ object MimaExcludes { | |||
| ProblemFilters.exclude[MissingClassProblem]("org.apache.spark.sql.DataFrameWriterV2"), | |||
| ProblemFilters.exclude[MissingClassProblem]("org.apache.spark.sql.WriteConfigMethods"), | |||
|
|
|||
| // SPARK-49413: Create a shared RuntimeConfig interface. | |||
| ProblemFilters.exclude[MissingClassProblem]("org.apache.spark.sql.RuntimeConfig"), | |||
| ProblemFilters.exclude[MissingClassProblem]("org.apache.spark.sql.RuntimeConfig$"), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ya, this looks like a real breaking change indeed from Spark SQL part.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it is not. The org.apache.spark.sql.RuntimeConfig class is still there. It was just moved. MiMa - unfortunately - cannot deal with that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ya, got it. So, there is no breaking change effectively because it's in api module?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you add a comment here as a follow-up, please, @hvanhovell ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure I will create a follow-up.
| @@ -1110,13 +1103,13 @@ object SparkSession extends Logging { | |||
| private[sql] def getOrCloneSessionWithConfigsOff( | |||
| session: SparkSession, | |||
| configurations: Seq[ConfigEntry[Boolean]]): SparkSession = { | |||
| val configsEnabled = configurations.filter(session.conf.get[Boolean]) | |||
| val configsEnabled = configurations.filter(session.sessionState.conf.getConf[Boolean]) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although this is not a breaking change, do we still need this change inevitably for some reasons?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If then, the developers seem to be annoyed by this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this PR I use the abstract class in sql/api the main interface. I did not really wanted to add support for this because it is not user facing, and because it requires me to move even more stuff into sql/api.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which developers? Spark developers?
| @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ class FileBasedDataSourceSuite extends QueryTest | |||
|
|
|||
| override def beforeAll(): Unit = { | |||
| super.beforeAll() | |||
| spark.conf.set(SQLConf.ORC_IMPLEMENTATION, "native") | |||
| spark.conf.set(SQLConf.ORC_IMPLEMENTATION.key, "native") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this a required user-facing change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well the method that takes a sql conf entry is gone now... This was not a user facing feature to begin with.
|
Thank you for making this direction, @hvanhovell . In general it looks like achieving most goals, but the following changes looks like a big user (Spark app developers) facing glitch to me. If possible, can we make Apache Spark 4.0.0 migration more seamlessly by supporting back in the same way? |
|
If this is difficult, could you file a JIRA issue instead? Then, if it's required by someone, he might pick it up.
|
|
@dongjoon-hyun which developers are you talking about? I have fixed all the spark cases. Generally library developers should not really be using any of this, if they don't want their stuff to break. |
It is not difficult, it is just yet another thing that needs to be moved to common/utils. |
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR introduces a shared RuntimeConfig interface. ### Why are the changes needed? We are creating a shared Scala Spark SQL interface for Classic and Connect. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#47980 from hvanhovell/SPARK-49413. Authored-by: Herman van Hovell <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Herman van Hovell <[email protected]>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR introduces a shared RuntimeConfig interface. ### Why are the changes needed? We are creating a shared Scala Spark SQL interface for Classic and Connect. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#47980 from hvanhovell/SPARK-49413. Authored-by: Herman van Hovell <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Herman van Hovell <[email protected]>
…interface ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR adds support for ConfigEntry to the RuntimeConfig interface. This was removed in #47980. ### Why are the changes needed? This functionality is used a lot by Spark libraries. Removing them caused friction, and adding them does not pollute the RuntimeConfig interface. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. This is developer API. ### How was this patch tested? I have added tests cases for Connect and Classic. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #49062 from hvanhovell/SPARK-49709. Authored-by: Herman van Hovell <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Herman van Hovell <[email protected]>
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR introduces a shared RuntimeConfig interface.
Why are the changes needed?
We are creating a shared Scala Spark SQL interface for Classic and Connect.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing tests.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.