corleyma commented on issue #1079:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/issues/1079#issuecomment-2299646746
This proposed change made me wonder if I may have been implicitly relying on
this behavior (bootstrapping tables with a schema, but then ingesting new data
that may evolve the schema...)
E.g., I've been doing something like:
```
with
iceberg_table.update_schema(allow_incompatible_changes=allow_incompatible_changes)
as update:
update.union_by_name(sanitized_pyiceberg_schema)
```
As I looked into it, it looks like the relevant codepath for this is
slightly different, and [lives
here](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-python/blob/main/pyiceberg/table/__init__.py#L2881).
In my opinion, the ideal behavior would be to take the existing field doc if
there's no doc defined for the field in the new schema, otherwise update... and
it looks like that is what was being implemented as well in the link above,
except I think there's a bug in the condition? i.e., shouldn't it be `if
field.doc is not None and field.doc != existing_field.doc:`?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
