Skip to content

Conversation

@kalpit
Copy link
Contributor

@kalpit kalpit commented Apr 25, 2014

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@kalpit
Copy link
Contributor Author

kalpit commented Apr 27, 2014

I don't see how the build failure is related to the commit. How can I get the build re-triggered ?

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Apr 27, 2014

To retrigger the build, you write:

Jenkins, retest this please.

I think anything with "retest" does it. Not sure if you have to say "please" but manners never hurt!

@pwendell
Copy link
Contributor

I actually don't think this particular PR ever was tested with Jenkins (?). Jenkins, test this please.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build triggered.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build started.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build finished. All automated tests passed.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

All automated tests passed.
Refer to this link for build results: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/14516/

@kalpit
Copy link
Contributor Author

kalpit commented Apr 28, 2014

My understanding was that a successful run of automated jenkins test would remove the "travis CI" build error from the PR. Looks like that is not the case. How is the "Travis CI" build different from the automated Jenkins test run ? How do I go about fixing/getting-rid of the "Travis CI" build error from the PR so that it can be merged if/when we decide to merge it ?

@kalpit
Copy link
Contributor Author

kalpit commented Apr 30, 2014

@pwendell @srowen Can you reply to my previous comment when you get a chance ? Thanks.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Apr 30, 2014

@kalpit Don't worry about Travis at the moment, it's not the official test. Jenkins's test succeeded as you can see.

@kalpit
Copy link
Contributor Author

kalpit commented Apr 30, 2014

Ok. I won't monitor the PR then. You can merge it when the time is right. Thanks.

@pwendell
Copy link
Contributor

pwendell commented Jun 4, 2014

Jenkins, retest this please. Seems reasonable to bump this up.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build triggered.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build started.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build finished.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Refer to this link for build results: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/15435/

@pwendell
Copy link
Contributor

pwendell commented Jun 5, 2014

Jenkins, retest this please.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build triggered.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build started.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Merged build finished. All automated tests passed.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

All automated tests passed.
Refer to this link for build results: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/15470/

@pwendell
Copy link
Contributor

pwendell commented Jun 5, 2014

Thanks, I've merged this.

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 5473aa7 Jun 5, 2014
pdeyhim pushed a commit to pdeyhim/spark-1 that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2014
https://github.com/sbt/sbt-assembly/blob/master/README.md

Author: Kalpit Shah <[email protected]>

Closes apache#555 from kalpit/upgrade/sbtassembly and squashes the following commits:

1fa7324 [Kalpit Shah] sbt 0.13.X should be using sbt-assembly 0.11.X
xiliu82 pushed a commit to xiliu82/spark that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2014
https://github.com/sbt/sbt-assembly/blob/master/README.md

Author: Kalpit Shah <[email protected]>

Closes apache#555 from kalpit/upgrade/sbtassembly and squashes the following commits:

1fa7324 [Kalpit Shah] sbt 0.13.X should be using sbt-assembly 0.11.X
bzhaoopenstack pushed a commit to bzhaoopenstack/spark that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2019
The default pod network cidr is 192.168.0.0/16, it
perhaps conflict with the node ip, there are two ways
to fix this, change the cidr or change the network add on,
we choose the second one here.

Related-Bug: theopenlab/openlab#298
arjunshroff pushed a commit to arjunshroff/spark that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2020
RolatZhang added a commit to RolatZhang/spark that referenced this pull request Feb 8, 2023
RolatZhang added a commit to RolatZhang/spark that referenced this pull request Dec 8, 2023
turboFei pushed a commit to turboFei/spark that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2025
* [SPARK-49476][SQL] Fix nullability of base64 function

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

Fix the nullability of the `Base64` expression to be based on the child's nullability, and not always be nullable.

### Why are the changes needed?

apache#47303 had a side effect of changing the nullability by the switch to using `StaticInvoke`. This was also backported to Spark 3.5.2 and caused schema mismatch errors for stateful streams when we upgraded. This restores the previous behavior which is supported by StaticInvoke through the `returnNullable` argument. If the child is non-nullable, we know the result will be non-nullable.

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

Restores the nullability of the `Base64` expression to what is was in Spark 3.5.1 and earlier.

### How was this patch tested?

New UT

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

No

Closes apache#47941 from Kimahriman/base64-nullability.

Lead-authored-by: Adam Binford <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maxim Gekk <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit c274c5a)
Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>

* [SPARK-49476][SQL][3.5][FOLLOWUP] Fix base64 proto test

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

Fix a test that is failing from backporting apache#47941

### Why are the changes needed?

Fix test

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

No

### How was this patch tested?

Fixed test

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

No

Closes apache#47964 from Kimahriman/base64-proto-test.

Authored-by: Adam Binford <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>

* [SPARK-49476][SQL][3.5][FOLLOWUP] Fix base64 proto test

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

Fix a test that is failing from backporting apache#47941

### Why are the changes needed?

Fix test

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

No

### How was this patch tested?

Fixed test

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

No

Closes apache#47964 from Kimahriman/base64-proto-test.

Authored-by: Adam Binford <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>

---------

Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kent Yao <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Adam Binford <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maxim Gekk <[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.

4 participants