crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Josh Wills (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CRUNCH-623) Improve PTable#cogroup Javadoc
Date Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:35:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-623?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15562748#comment-15562748
] 

Josh Wills commented on CRUNCH-623:
-----------------------------------

Doc fixes are the best-- thanks [~nathan.schile@gmail.com]!

> Improve PTable#cogroup Javadoc
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CRUNCH-623
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-623
>             Project: Crunch
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Nathan Schile
>            Assignee: Josh Wills
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 0.15.0
>
>         Attachments: 0001-Improves-Javadoc-of-PTable-cogroup.patch
>
>
> The Javadoc for PTable#cogroup maybe confusing when comparing it to the PTable#join javadoc
> {noformat}
>   /**
>    * Perform an inner join on this table and the one passed in as an argument on
>    * their common keys.
>    */
>   <U> PTable<K, Pair<V, U>> join(PTable<K, U> other);
>   /**
>    * Co-group operation with the given table on common keys.
>    */
>   <U> PTable<K, Pair<Collection<V>, Collection<U>>> cogroup(PTable<K,
U> other);
> {noformat}
> The phrasing of "common keys" in the cogroup method make it sound like the cogroup will
be a inner join on the table. I think removing the "common keys" from the cogroup method will
remove that confusion.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message