Skip to content

[SPARK-5790][GraphX]: VertexRDD's won't zip properly for diff capability (added tests)#5023

Closed
brennonyork wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
brennonyork:SPARK-5790
Closed

[SPARK-5790][GraphX]: VertexRDD's won't zip properly for diff capability (added tests)#5023
brennonyork wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
brennonyork:SPARK-5790

Conversation

@brennonyork
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Added tests that @maropu created for vertices with differing partition counts. Wanted to make sure his work got captured /merged as its not in the master branch and I don't believe there's a PR out already for it.

@brennonyork
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

/cc @maropu @ankurdave @srowen

@SparkQA
Copy link
Copy Markdown

SparkQA commented Mar 13, 2015

Test build #28598 has started for PR 5023 at commit 83bbd29.

  • This patch merges cleanly.

@srowen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

srowen commented Mar 14, 2015

OK, is the idea that these are tests that pass, that should be included, or tests that fail and demonstrate a problem? Jenkins will tell us soon.

@SparkQA
Copy link
Copy Markdown

SparkQA commented Mar 14, 2015

Test build #28598 has finished for PR 5023 at commit 83bbd29.

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

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/28598/
Test PASSed.

@srowen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

srowen commented Mar 14, 2015

OK to merge, since tests are good. Does this mean SPARK-5790 is essentially resolved by this? sounds like it was fixed separately, and this is about getting in additional tests created by the parallel effort to address this.

@brennonyork
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Sorry @srowen I should've been more clear, but yes you're correct. SPARK-5790 ended up duplicating most effort from SPARK-1955, PR #4705, but @maropu had created tests with his that I hadn't included. Wanted to make sure those were captured and, since SPARK-5790 wasn't closed, thought it best to include those here. Does that make sense? Sorry about the confusion!

@asfgit asfgit closed this in c49d156 Mar 14, 2015
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.

4 participants