[SPARK-26963][MLLIB] SizeEstimator can't make some JDK fields accessible in Java 9+ #23866
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
| // do nothing | ||
| // Java 9+ can throw InaccessibleObjectException but the class is Java 9+-only | ||
| case re: RuntimeException | ||
| if re.getClass.getSimpleName == "InaccessibleObjectException" => |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor comment/question: if it's not an InaccessibleObjectException, wouldn't it throw a case match error which might be confusing? Just wondering if a default catch-all should re-raise the original "re: RuntimeException"
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The exception would just propagate, as before, if it's not matched by either case. That's what we want, if something else goes wrong.
imatiach-msft
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2019
| // Note: in Java 9+ this would be better with trySetAccessible and canAccess | ||
| try { | ||
| field.setAccessible(true) // Enable future get()'s on this field | ||
| pointerFields = field :: pointerFields |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this be inside the try:
pointerFields = field :: pointerFields
it seems like we could still record it even if the setAccessible failed?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, the point is that we don't want to try to access it below; it's not accessible
|
Test build #102606 has finished for PR 23866 at commit
|
Member
Author
|
Merged to master |
robert3005
pushed a commit
to palantir/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2019
…ble in Java 9+ ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? Don't use inaccessible fields in SizeEstimator, which comes up in Java 9+ ## How was this patch tested? Manually ran tests with Java 11; it causes these tests that failed before to pass. This ought to pass on Java 8 as there's effectively no change for Java 8. Closes apache#23866 from srowen/SPARK-26963. Authored-by: Sean Owen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sean Owen <[email protected]>
bulldozer-bot bot
pushed a commit
to palantir/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2019
…ble in Java 9+ (#580) ## Upstream SPARK-26963 apache#23866 ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? Don't use inaccessible fields in SizeEstimator, which comes up in Java 9+ ## How was this patch tested? Manually ran tests with Java 11; it causes these tests that failed before to pass. This ought to pass on Java 8 as there's effectively no change for Java 8. Closes apache#23866 from srowen/SPARK-26963. Authored-by: Sean Owen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sean Owen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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?
Don't use inaccessible fields in SizeEstimator, which comes up in Java 9+
How was this patch tested?
Manually ran tests with Java 11; it causes these tests that failed before to pass.
This ought to pass on Java 8 as there's effectively no change for Java 8.