Data: Allow classes of different packages to implement DeleteFilter #9352
Conversation
Regarding the issue of decimal scale apache#9350
| @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ private DecimalUtil() {} | |||
| public static byte[] toReusedFixLengthBytes( | |||
| int precision, int scale, BigDecimal decimal, byte[] reuseBuf) { | |||
| Preconditions.checkArgument( | |||
| decimal.scale() == scale, | |||
| decimal.scale() <= scale, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this safe? It is re-use fix length bytes but in this case we aren't using all the bytes.
| @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ public void incrementDeleteCount() { | |||
| counter.increment(); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| Accessor<StructLike> posAccessor() { | |||
| public Accessor<StructLike> posAccessor() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we want to open this up?
|
This seem like two different issues attempted to being solved in 1 PR. Please Separate them. I think you also need to offer a much more detailed explanation of why you want to make an api Public. |
|
This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@iceberg.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
This pull request has been closed due to lack of activity. This is not a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It is just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request requires review, you can revive the PR at any time. |
Increase the flexibility of DeleteFilter #9351