Skip to content

[SPARK-5790][GraphX]: VertexRDD's won't zip properly for diff capability (added tests) #5023

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.

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

brennonyork
Copy link

Added tests that @maropu created for vertices with differing partition counts. Wanted to make sure his work got captured /merged as its not in the master branch and I don't believe there's a PR out already for it.

@brennonyork
Copy link
Author

/cc @maropu @ankurdave @srowen

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 13, 2015

Test build #28598 has started for PR 5023 at commit 83bbd29.

  • This patch merges cleanly.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Mar 14, 2015

OK, is the idea that these are tests that pass, that should be included, or tests that fail and demonstrate a problem? Jenkins will tell us soon.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 14, 2015

Test build #28598 has finished for PR 5023 at commit 83bbd29.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/28598/
Test PASSed.

@srowen
Copy link
Member

srowen commented Mar 14, 2015

OK to merge, since tests are good. Does this mean SPARK-5790 is essentially resolved by this? sounds like it was fixed separately, and this is about getting in additional tests created by the parallel effort to address this.

@brennonyork
Copy link
Author

Sorry @srowen I should've been more clear, but yes you're correct. SPARK-5790 ended up duplicating most effort from SPARK-1955, PR #4705, but @maropu had created tests with his that I hadn't included. Wanted to make sure those were captured and, since SPARK-5790 wasn't closed, thought it best to include those here. Does that make sense? Sorry about the confusion!

@asfgit asfgit closed this in c49d156 Mar 14, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants