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

[PySpark] Fix typo in comments in PySpark's udf() definition #20158

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

rednaxelafx
Copy link
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Just a simple typo fix from curcuiting to circuiting.

How was this patch tested?

N/A. This patch does not change any code behavior.

@rednaxelafx rednaxelafx changed the title Fix typo in comments in PySpark's udf() definition [PySpark] Fix typo in comments in PySpark's udf() definition Jan 4, 2018
@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Jan 4, 2018

OK. Have a look for more typos while you're at it. We try to avoid whole PRs just to fix each one.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 4, 2018

Test build #85700 has finished for PR 20158 at commit 1d42d86.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@rednaxelafx
Copy link
Contributor Author

@srowen Thanks for your review! I'll have a look at other typos and update this PR later.

I was actually working on code around this place and thought I'd split out the typo fix to make it cleaner to review. Yes I totally agree it's a good idea to clean up more than one typo in a single PR.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Jan 4, 2018

You can just combine small-scale fixes to the surrounding code in the main PR then. I think that's fine.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

There's a same typo in pandas_udf too BTW.

@felixcheung
Copy link
Member

let's get them fixed for 2.3?

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Jan 9, 2018

Ping @rednaxelafx

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

@rednaxelafx, can you fix the one in pandas_udf too? I'll just merge this.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

@rednaxelafx, I was fixing some codes around UDF. I included the current typo in #20288. I think you could close this one.

@rednaxelafx
Copy link
Contributor Author

@HyukjinKwon cool! Thanks a lot for including it! Closing this one now.

asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 18, 2018
… and Catalog in PySpark

## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to deprecate `register*` for UDFs in `SQLContext` and `Catalog` in Spark 2.3.0.

These are inconsistent with Scala / Java APIs and also these basically do the same things with `spark.udf.register*`.

Also, this PR moves the logcis from `[sqlContext|spark.catalog].register*` to `spark.udf.register*` and reuse the docstring.

This PR also handles minor doc corrections. It also includes #20158

## How was this patch tested?

Manually tested, manually checked the API documentation and tests added to check if deprecated APIs call the aliases correctly.

Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]>

Closes #20288 from HyukjinKwon/deprecate-udf.

(cherry picked from commit 39d244d)
Signed-off-by: Takuya UESHIN <[email protected]>
asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 18, 2018
… and Catalog in PySpark

## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR proposes to deprecate `register*` for UDFs in `SQLContext` and `Catalog` in Spark 2.3.0.

These are inconsistent with Scala / Java APIs and also these basically do the same things with `spark.udf.register*`.

Also, this PR moves the logcis from `[sqlContext|spark.catalog].register*` to `spark.udf.register*` and reuse the docstring.

This PR also handles minor doc corrections. It also includes #20158

## How was this patch tested?

Manually tested, manually checked the API documentation and tests added to check if deprecated APIs call the aliases correctly.

Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]>

Closes #20288 from HyukjinKwon/deprecate-udf.
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.

5 participants