anoopj commented on code in PR #15049: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15049#discussion_r2907692798
########## core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/TrackingInfo.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +/* + * 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; + +import java.nio.ByteBuffer; +import org.apache.iceberg.types.Types; + +/** + * Tracking information for a tracked file entry in a v4 manifest. + * + * <p>This groups the status, snapshot, and sequence number information for the entry. This enables + * accessing the fields for the entry and provides an isolated structure that can be modified. + */ +interface TrackingInfo { + Types.NestedField STATUS = + Types.NestedField.required( + 0, + "status", + Types.IntegerType.get(), + "Entry status: 0=existing, 1=added, 2=deleted, 3=replaced"); + Types.NestedField SNAPSHOT_ID = + Types.NestedField.optional( + 1, + "snapshot_id", + Types.LongType.get(), + "Snapshot ID where the file was added or deleted"); + Types.NestedField DV_SNAPSHOT_ID = + Types.NestedField.optional( + 157, + "dv_snapshot_id", + Types.LongType.get(), + "Snapshot ID where the DV was added. May only be defined when a deletion vector is present"); Review Comment: > should not state a requirement and instead state the simple result of one Done > Separately, do we think that this will stay the same in replaced entries? This is a good question. I think updating dv_snapshot_id on the `REPLACED` entry is redundant: the information is already on the new entry. Keeping the original is probably better because: - The REPLACED entry preserves what was there before - The new EXISTING entry tells you what replaced it and when - Overwriting dv_snapshot_id on the REPLACED entry would actually lose the original DV provenance -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
