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

[SPARK-21705][CORE][DOC]Add spark.internal.config parameter description #18916

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

heary-cao
Copy link
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Currently, some of the configuration parameters of spark.internal.config without adding a description, which is incorrectly, this PR is based on http://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/configuration.html Property Name to supplement spark.internal.config parameter description.

How was this patch tested?

the existing test.

@heary-cao heary-cao changed the title [CORE][DOC]Add spark.internal.config parameter description [SPARK-21705][CORE][DOC]Add spark.internal.config parameter description Aug 11, 2017
@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Aug 11, 2017

I think the problem is that this duplicates a bunch of documentation. The extended description don't need to be in the code or help messages.

1 similar comment
@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Aug 11, 2017

I think the problem is that this duplicates a bunch of documentation. The extended description don't need to be in the code or help messages.

@heary-cao
Copy link
Contributor Author

we can get the description of these configuration parameters directly from the code, except documents. so it's always good to add these descriptions to the code.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Aug 12, 2017

I'm saying that it's because they're already documented along with another configs at length in the documentation, we don't need to duplicate them in the source code. Now we have to remember to update two sets of docs at once.

@heary-cao
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is it possible that we can delete the already deleted comments in the source code and add them to the another configs at length in the documentation?
because they don't seem to have to be, and some exist, some do not. it's weird,

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Aug 12, 2017

What do you mean specifically? there is some documentation that doesn't exist anymore but should be re-added? or is there some inconsistency to resolve?

@heary-cao
Copy link
Contributor Author

heary-cao commented Aug 12, 2017

Currently, some descriptions exist in the source code that are already documented along with another configs at length in the documentation, such as: spark.files.openCostInBytes, do we need to delete them and save only one copy?

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Aug 12, 2017

I agree, I don't see a value in this duplicated documentation. It's not in comments, but in the argument doc strings. It is applied inconsistently. I would favor consistency. I don't know if it's worth adding more docs, or removing the ones that are there. I guess I'm neutral on doing anything here.

@heary-cao
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @HyukjinKwon @gatorsmile

@gatorsmile
Copy link
Member

In Spark SQL, the description of all the SQLConf can be displayed through the SQL commands. However, I am not sure how end users can get the descriptions of these Spark Conf.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

I am -0 by the same reason above ^.

@jiangxb1987
Copy link
Contributor

Should we continue with this PR? @gatorsmile @srowen @HyukjinKwon

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

vanzin commented Dec 12, 2017

There's no code to print docs for non-SQL configs, so this change at this moment in time doesn't really do anything useful. We should close this.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

srowen added a commit to srowen/spark that referenced this pull request Dec 31, 2017
@srowen srowen mentioned this pull request Dec 31, 2017
@asfgit asfgit closed this in f5b7714 Jan 1, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants