RussellSpitzer commented on code in PR #6163:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6163#discussion_r1018488935
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/Partitioning.java:
##########
@@ -298,4 +324,33 @@ private static boolean compatibleTransforms(Transform<?,
?> t1, Transform<?, ?>
|| t1.equals(Transforms.alwaysNull())
|| t2.equals(Transforms.alwaysNull());
}
+
+ private static Set<Integer>
commonPartitionFieldIds(Collection<PartitionSpec> specs) {
+ Set<Integer> commonFieldIds = Sets.newHashSet();
+
+ int specIndex = 0;
+ for (PartitionSpec spec : specs) {
+ if (specIndex == 0) {
+ commonFieldIds.addAll(activeFieldIds(spec));
+ } else {
+ commonFieldIds.retainAll(activeFieldIds(spec));
+ }
+
+ specIndex++;
+ }
+
+ ValidationException.check(
+ commonFieldIds.size() > 0 || specs.size() == 1,
+ "Specs do not have any common fields: %s",
Review Comment:
Unpartitioned tables don't have a spec right? Behavior there is to return
the empty struct?
--
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
