stevenzwu commented on code in PR #12424: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12424#discussion_r1978022176
########## flink/v1.20/flink/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/sink/dynamic/PartitionSpecAdjustment.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.iceberg.flink.sink.dynamic; + +import org.apache.iceberg.PartitionField; +import org.apache.iceberg.PartitionSpec; +import org.apache.iceberg.Schema; +import org.apache.iceberg.UnboundPartitionSpec; + +public class PartitionSpecAdjustment { + + private PartitionSpecAdjustment() {} + + public static PartitionSpec adjustPartitionSpecToTableSchema( + Schema tableSchema, PartitionSpec userSpec) { + if (userSpec.isUnpartitioned()) { + return userSpec; + } + UnboundPartitionSpec.Builder builder = Review Comment: Can we use `PartitionSpec#toUnbound()` here and avoid changing `api` module? I see the change is mainly to support this type of change. It is to support the case that two schemas (old and new) used the same field name but have different field ids. ``` String sourceFieldName = userSpec.schema().idToName().get(field.sourceId()); int adjustedSourceId = tableSchema.findField(sourceFieldName).fieldId(); ``` I guess it is like this scenario * rename field "foo" to "bar" (with id = 9) * create a new field called "foo" (with id = 15) while still want to maintaining the partition spec on the field name "foo" after the schema change but bound to the new field 15. wondering if this is a behavior we want to support. I think this result can be support with deletion of old partition field and addition of a new partition field. that will be a more clear intention than silently changing the binding of an existing partition field to a new source field. what is the purpose of the adjustment? there is no change in PartitionSpec. just rebind it with new table schema? -- 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
