Mailing-List: contact issues-help@flink.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flink.apache.org
From: fhueske <git@git.apache.org>
To: issues@flink.incubator.apache.org
Reply-To: issues@flink.incubator.apache.org
References: <git-pr-3547-flink@git.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <git-pr-3547-flink@git.apache.org>
Subject: [GitHub] flink pull request #3547: [FLINK-5653] Add processing time OVER ROWS BETWEEN...
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20170317110310.D42F7DFE1E@git1-us-west.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:03:10 +0000 (UTC)
archived-at: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:03:15 -0000

Github user fhueske commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3547#discussion_r106627282
  
    --- Diff: flink-libraries/flink-table/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/table/plan/nodes/datastream/DataStreamOverAggregate.scala ---
    @@ -106,9 +113,14 @@ class DataStreamOverAggregate(
             if (overWindow.lowerBound.isUnbounded &&
               overWindow.upperBound.isCurrentRow) {
               createUnboundedAndCurrentRowProcessingTimeOverWindow(inputDS)
    +        } // lowerbound is a BasicType and upperbound is PRECEEDING or CURRENT ROW
    +        else if (overWindow.lowerBound.getOffset.getType.isInstanceOf[BasicSqlType]
    --- End diff --
    
    Yes, I realized that when looking at PR #3550 that `isInstanceOf[BasicSqlType]` and `.isInstanceOf[IntervalSqlType]` distinguishes ROW from RANGE windows. I think using `.isRows()` is more clear and might also be safer because it appears to be a more public API than the type of the offset.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---