[SPARK-49872][CORE] Remove jackson JSON string length limitation #52049
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
Author
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Aug 18, 2025
|
|
||
| // SPARK-49872: Remove jackson JSON string length limitation. | ||
| mapper.getFactory.setStreamReadConstraints( | ||
| StreamReadConstraints.builder().maxStringLength(Int.MaxValue).build() |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you fix the compilation failure, @cloud-fan ?
[error] /home/runner/work/spark/spark/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/util/JsonProtocol.scala:71:5: not found: value StreamReadConstraints
[error] StreamReadConstraints.builder().maxStringLength(Int.MaxValue).build()
[error] ^
[error] one error found
cloud-fan
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
The docker failure is unrelated, thanks for the review, merging to master/4.0/3.5! |
cloud-fan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2025
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is a surgical fix extracted from #49163 The default jackson string limit introduced in jackson 2.15 can be too small for certain workloads, and this PR removes this limitation to avoid any regression. ### Why are the changes needed? fix regression ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, users won't hit this size limitation anymore. ### How was this patch tested? #49163 tested it. We won't add a test in this PR as generating a super large JSON will make the CI unstable. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? no Closes #52049 from cloud-fan/json. Lead-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Co-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <cloud0fan@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit 076618a) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
cloud-fan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2025
This is a surgical fix extracted from #49163 The default jackson string limit introduced in jackson 2.15 can be too small for certain workloads, and this PR removes this limitation to avoid any regression. fix regression Yes, users won't hit this size limitation anymore. #49163 tested it. We won't add a test in this PR as generating a super large JSON will make the CI unstable. no Closes #52049 from cloud-fan/json. Lead-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Co-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <cloud0fan@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit 076618a) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
turboFei
pushed a commit
to turboFei/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 6, 2025
…tps://github.corp.ebay.com/carmel/ebay-spark/pull/863 (apache#22) This is a surgical fix extracted from apache#49163 The default jackson string limit introduced in jackson 2.15 can be too small for certain workloads, and this PR removes this limitation to avoid any regression. fix regression Yes, users won't hit this size limitation anymore. apache#49163 tested it. We won't add a test in this PR as generating a super large JSON will make the CI unstable. no Closes apache#52049 from cloud-fan/json. Lead-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit 076618a) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Co-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Co-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <cloud0fan@gmail.com>
zifeif2
pushed a commit
to zifeif2/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2025
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is a surgical fix extracted from apache#49163 The default jackson string limit introduced in jackson 2.15 can be too small for certain workloads, and this PR removes this limitation to avoid any regression. ### Why are the changes needed? fix regression ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, users won't hit this size limitation anymore. ### How was this patch tested? apache#49163 tested it. We won't add a test in this PR as generating a super large JSON will make the CI unstable. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? no Closes apache#52049 from cloud-fan/json. Lead-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Co-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <cloud0fan@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit a76c1a4) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This is a surgical fix extracted from #49163
The default jackson string limit introduced in jackson 2.15 can be too small for certain workloads, and this PR removes this limitation to avoid any regression.
Why are the changes needed?
fix regression
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes, users won't hit this size limitation anymore.
How was this patch tested?
#49163 tested it. We won't add a test in this PR as generating a super large JSON will make the CI unstable.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
no