Repository navigation
docs: point Iceberg write comments to the consolidated user guide - #7331
Draft
Abhishek-Mohan wants to merge 5 commits into
Draft
Abhishek-Mohan wants to merge 5 commits into
Abhishek-Mohan wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
Abhishek-Mohan
marked this pull request as draft
October 30, 2026 02:09
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #7101.
Rationale for this change
Four Scala comments still name the user-guide
iceberg-writes.mdpage removed by #7090. Two give a nonexistent path; two give a bare filename that can be confused with the contributor-guide page.What changes are included in this PR?
Point all four comments to
docs/source/user-guide/latest/iceberg.mdand name "Accepted divergences" under Writes. The references cover compression, fanout ordering, and file rolling in the two Iceberg benchmarks.The patch changes comments only. #5724 and its follow-up #7226 also update the write-benchmark reference on their open branches; all four references remain stale on main at submission.
How are these changes tested?
iceberg-writes.mdreferences remain in Scala sources.git diff --checkpassed../mvnw -o spotless:check "-DspotlessFiles=.*(IcebergWriteProtoTranslation|CometIcebergWriteActionSuite|CometIcebergEndToEndBenchmark|CometIcebergWriteBenchmark)\.scala"Local validation at
2d59d4c67No new tests were added because only comments changed. Additional local validation was run on macOS arm64 at
2d59d4c67. The head has since only mergedmain; none of the four files changed, and the diff againstmainis the same:package -DskipTests scalafix:scalafix -Dscalafix.mode=CHECK -Psemanticdb) passed for Spark 3.5.9 / Scala 2.12 / JDK 17; Spark 4.0.4 / JDK 17 and JDK 21; Spark 4.1.3 / JDK 17; and Spark 4.2.0 / JDK 17.IcebergWriteProtoTranslationSuiteandCometIcebergWriteActionSuitecompleted with the results below. The fanout-ordering test passed on Spark 3.5, both 4.0 runs, and 4.1.Spark 4.2 has no Iceberg runtime in this profile: its Iceberg-dependent cases were canceled, so that row does not establish native Iceberg write coverage. Other cancellations are existing version guards. Spark 3.4 was excluded from this requested local matrix because it is deprecated.
Local Iceberg Spark and Spark SQL suite runs were stopped as unnecessary for a comment-only change. Local results are macOS coverage, not a claim that Linux CI has passed.
CI
The pull request tier runs on the fork (
CI (fork)). It passed on earlier heads9443c765dandd562fe16a. One later run failed only because GitHub lost the runner in the unrelatednative-executorsjob. The merge queue runs Spark SQL on Spark 4.1 and Iceberg 1.11.Review skills
Reviewed against
mainwith the repository skillsreview-comet-pr,review-comet-docs, andreview-comet-iceberg-write-pr.review-comet-expression-pris routed by theserde/path but has nothing to check, because no expression or executable code changes. No findings. The docs-review mechanical checks found no "native" or "vectorized" wording, config keys, operator names, version claims, or markers, and no file underdocs/sourcechanges. Compared withbranch-1.2, the PR changes no behavior.Council review
Reviewed using the t3dotgg/tstack council workflow. In both rounds every delegate was satisfied with no required code changes. Round 2 asked only for this description update.
Rounds: 2
2d59d4c67)2dfdc72a2)Created with GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5 in OpenCode through T3 Code.