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

Consolidate TaskDescrition constructors. #2

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 7, 2017

Conversation

kayousterhout
Copy link

Here's what I was thinking in the PR -- let me know if this makes sense.

This commit also does all task serializion in the encode() method,
so now the encode() method just takes the TaskDescription as an
input parameter.
@witgo witgo merged this pull request into witgo:SPARK-17931 Feb 7, 2017
@kayousterhout kayousterhout deleted the SPARK-18890 branch April 11, 2017 22:06
witgo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2018
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

There were two related fixes regarding `from_json`, `get_json_object` and `json_tuple` ([Fix #1](apache@c8803c0),
 [Fix #2](apache@86174ea)), but they weren't comprehensive it seems. I wanted to extend those fixes to all the parsers, and add tests for each case.

## How was this patch tested?

Regression tests

Author: Burak Yavuz <[email protected]>

Closes apache#20302 from brkyvz/json-invfix.
witgo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 7, 2018
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

There were two related fixes regarding `from_json`, `get_json_object` and `json_tuple` ([Fix #1](apache@c8803c0),
 [Fix #2](apache@86174ea)), but they weren't comprehensive it seems. I wanted to extend those fixes to all the parsers, and add tests for each case.

## How was this patch tested?

Regression tests

Author: Burak Yavuz <[email protected]>

Closes apache#20302 from brkyvz/json-invfix.

(cherry picked from commit e01919e)
Signed-off-by: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]>
witgo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2020
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
`org.apache.spark.sql.kafka010.KafkaDelegationTokenSuite` failed lately. After had a look at the logs it just shows the following fact without any details:
```
Caused by: sbt.ForkMain$ForkError: sun.security.krb5.KrbException: Server not found in Kerberos database (7) - Server not found in Kerberos database
```
Since the issue is intermittent and not able to reproduce it we should add more debug information and wait for reproduction with the extended logs.

### Why are the changes needed?
Failing test doesn't give enough debug information.

### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.

### How was this patch tested?
I've started the test manually and checked that such additional debug messages show up:
```
>>> KrbApReq: APOptions are 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
>>> EType: sun.security.krb5.internal.crypto.Aes128CtsHmacSha1EType
Looking for keys for: kafka/localhostEXAMPLE.COM
Added key: 17version: 0
Added key: 23version: 0
Added key: 16version: 0
Found unsupported keytype (3) for kafka/localhostEXAMPLE.COM
>>> EType: sun.security.krb5.internal.crypto.Aes128CtsHmacSha1EType
Using builtin default etypes for permitted_enctypes
default etypes for permitted_enctypes: 17 16 23.
>>> EType: sun.security.krb5.internal.crypto.Aes128CtsHmacSha1EType
MemoryCache: add 1571936500/174770/16C565221B70AAB2BEFE31A83D13A2F4/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM to client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM|kafka/localhostEXAMPLE.COM
MemoryCache: Existing AuthList:
apache#3: 1571936493/200803/8CD70D280B0862C5DA1FF901ECAD39FE/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM
#2: 1571936499/985009/BAD33290D079DD4E3579A8686EC326B7/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM
#1: 1571936499/995208/B76B9D78A9BE283AC78340157107FD40/client/localhostEXAMPLE.COM
```

Closes apache#26252 from gaborgsomogyi/SPARK-29580.

Authored-by: Gabor Somogyi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
witgo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 7, 2024
… throw internal error

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR fixes the error messages and classes when Python UDFs are used in higher order functions.

### Why are the changes needed?

To show the proper user-facing exceptions with error classes.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

Yes, previously it threw internal error such as:

```python
from pyspark.sql.functions import transform, udf, col, array
spark.range(1).select(transform(array("id"), lambda x: udf(lambda y: y)(x))).collect()
```

Before:

```
py4j.protocol.Py4JJavaError: An error occurred while calling o74.collectToPython.
: org.apache.spark.SparkException: Job aborted due to stage failure: Task 15 in stage 0.0 failed 1 times, most recent failure: Lost task 15.0 in stage 0.0 (TID 15) (ip-192-168-123-103.ap-northeast-2.compute.internal executor driver): org.apache.spark.SparkException: [INTERNAL_ERROR] Cannot evaluate expression: <lambda>(lambda x_0#3L)#2 SQLSTATE: XX000
	at org.apache.spark.SparkException$.internalError(SparkException.scala:92)
	at org.apache.spark.SparkException$.internalError(SparkException.scala:96)
```

After:

```
pyspark.errors.exceptions.captured.AnalysisException: [INVALID_LAMBDA_FUNCTION_CALL.UNEVALUABLE] Invalid lambda function call. Python UDFs should be used in a lambda function at a higher order function. However, "<lambda>(lambda x_0#3L)" was a Python UDF. SQLSTATE: 42K0D;
Project [transform(array(id#0L), lambdafunction(<lambda>(lambda x_0#3L)#2, lambda x_0#3L, false)) AS transform(array(id), lambdafunction(<lambda>(lambda x_0#3L), namedlambdavariable()))apache#4]
+- Range (0, 1, step=1, splits=Some(16))
```

### How was this patch tested?

Unittest was added

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No.

Closes apache#47079 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-48706.

Authored-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>
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.

2 participants