Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

SpannerIO - Do not use .get() on ValueProvider during pipeline creation #23294

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 22, 2022
Merged

SpannerIO - Do not use .get() on ValueProvider during pipeline creation #23294

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 22, 2022

Conversation

bvolpato
Copy link
Contributor

@bvolpato bvolpato commented Sep 19, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Fixes issue #22146 (also reported on StackOverflow).

ValueProvider can be used to pass runtime parameters not available during pipeline creation (which is heavily used by Dataflow Templates).

In case a RuntimeValueProvider is being used, using .get() will throw the following exception:

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Value only available at runtime, but accessed from a non-runtime context: RuntimeValueProvider{propertyName=spannerInstanceId, default=defaultinstanceid}
        at org.apache.beam.sdk.options.ValueProvider$RuntimeValueProvider.get(ValueProvider.java:254)
        at org.apache.beam.sdk.io.gcp.spanner.SpannerConfig.withInstanceId(SpannerConfig.java:165)
        at .... my code constructing SpannerConfig ...

So my changes adjust that behavior, to validate only if there is a reference to a provider, but not trying to use the value.
Ideally those can be validated elsewhere when not using the ValueProvider (the other entry methods do not specify @Nullable, so that should be handled already).

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

  • Choose reviewer(s) and mention them in a comment (R: @username).
  • Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
  • Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
  • If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

Build python source distribution and wheels
Python tests
Java tests
Go tests

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI.

@bvolpato
Copy link
Contributor Author

Run Java PreCommit

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @kileys for label java.
R: @chamikaramj for label io.

Available commands:

  • stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
  • remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
  • waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

@bvolpato
Copy link
Contributor Author

Run Java PreCommit

aromanenko-dev
aromanenko-dev approved these changes Sep 20, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@aromanenko-dev aromanenko-dev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, LGTM. It would be great to update CHANGES.md to make this fix more visible in release notes.

Also, I was wondering why it was not caught by Spanner integration tests but, iinm, they are not running periodically on Jenkins like others. So, it would be great to add this as a separate issue/PR.

@bvolpato bvolpato force-pushed the spanner-value-providers-fix branch 2 times, most recently from 6e20e48 to 7d0e463 Compare September 21, 2022 01:54
@bvolpato bvolpato force-pushed the spanner-value-providers-fix branch from 7d0e463 to cf790b5 Compare September 21, 2022 01:55
@bvolpato
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, LGTM. It would be great to update CHANGES.md to make this fix more visible in release notes.

Done, thank you. Please merge it if you agree with the CHANGES entry.

Also, I was wondering why it was not caught by Spanner integration tests but, iinm, they are not running periodically on Jenkins like others. So, it would be great to add this as a separate issue/PR.

From what I checked all tests are using the .withXyz(String), which end up instantiating .withXyz(StaticValueProvider), and then it works fine.

I think that the usage of .get() on a ValueProvider doesn't make sense as it kills the purpose of using providers. Maybe that could be enforced automatically (e.g., block any ValueProvider.get() outside a DoFn/PTransform) or at least pushed back on code review, but I am not sure how to proceed to improve the process here.

@bvolpato
Copy link
Contributor Author

Run Java PreCommit

@aromanenko-dev aromanenko-dev merged commit 6b7d8b1 into apache:master Sep 22, 2022
@bvolpato bvolpato deleted the spanner-value-providers-fix branch September 22, 2022 13:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@aromanenko-dev aromanenko-dev aromanenko-dev approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
gcp io java Next Action: Reviewers
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@bvolpato @aromanenko-dev