-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
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
Replace Monoid constraint by CommutativeSemigroup in the reduce syntax #203
Merged
Merged
Changes from 10 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8363460
Use a CommutativeMonoid in the reduce operations
b4dae3d
Use a commutative semigroup when reducing
8756a59
Add tests for RDD reductions by key
9b5c8dd
Verify the contents regardless of the order
f76c246
Upgrade Cats MTL
08010dc
Update cats
a136d69
Use sorted maps as they are commutative
c92df2f
empty-safe RDD reductions
2e43003
relax constraint on csumByKey
606282f
Upgrade Cats and related deps
067fbbd
Replace <+> by orElse
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I may be reading this wrong, but this seems incorrect to me. Isn't
x
getting added in twice in the case where bothl
andr
areSome
?If so, it's concerning that unit tests didn't catch this. Maybe some places that are calling
toRDD
on aList
should be callingparallelize
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I should probably replace the
<+>
operator byorElse
since I'm basically relying on the fact that the implementation of<+>
forOption
is that one.In essence, I just want to express the
Alternative
between the twoOption
(<|>
) but in cats this is implemented based onMonoidK
, and therefore<|>
becomes<+>
...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah right that makes sense. I think that I'm one of the people who advocated for doing this in Cats, so I probably should have realized what was going on here :P
It may be more straightforward to just use
orElse
, but if it works the right way then my main concern is gone. Thanks for the explanation!