[SPARK-54358][SDP][FOLLOWUP] Code clarity followups #53089
+11
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dongjoon-hyun
changed the title
| /** | ||
| * Converts a TableIdentifier to a path string by joining its name parts with the path separator. | ||
| */ | ||
| private def tableIdentifierToPathString(tableIdentifier: TableIdentifier): String = { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please fix the corresponding test case to use this method too.
Member
|
FYI, @sryza . For the follow-up PRs, the Apache Spark community uses As a result, you had better revise the remaining PR title, |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Followups from #53070 to improve code clarity.
Why are the changes needed?
Make sure the code for constructing SDP checkpoint directory paths is clear.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?