Skip to content
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

Data type and conversions are stricter for BQ sinks #21625

Closed
damccorm opened this issue Jun 5, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

Data type and conversions are stricter for BQ sinks #21625

damccorm opened this issue Jun 5, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@damccorm
Copy link
Contributor

damccorm commented Jun 5, 2022

From #17404, it seems like the timestamp conversion has been made stricter, such that the pipeline only accepts timestamps in the form “2022-05-09T18:04:59Z”.

 

Here are some formats that previously worked, but seem to no longer be accepted:

“2022-05-09 18:04:59”

“2022-05-09T18:04:59”

“2022-05-09T18:04:59.739-07:00”

 

Also from the same pull request, it seems to no longer accept integers in fields marked as floats

 

Unexpected value :0, type: class java.lang.Integer. Table field name: a, type: FLOAT64

 

Are these the desired behaviors? It’s different from the behavior I’ve observed when using the Streaming Inserts method.

Imported from Jira BEAM-14528. Original Jira may contain additional context.
Reported by: kkgcp.

@damccorm
Copy link
Contributor Author

damccorm commented Jun 5, 2022

Unable to assign user @yirutang. If able, self-assign, otherwise tag @damccorm so that he can assign you. Because of GitHub's spam prevention system, your activity is required to enable assignment in this repo.

@damccorm damccorm added this to the 2.40.0 Release milestone Jun 5, 2022
@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

The integer issue is also filed as #21693 which was fixed by #17779. This seems like an important quick fix to accept standard date formats. @reuvenlax @yirutang

@kennknowles kennknowles added P1 and removed P2 labels Jun 14, 2022
@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

Is this a regression for existing pipelines, or is it a failure of the upgrade path to the new BQ APIs?

@reuvenlax
Copy link
Contributor

@yirutang I believe your fixes for this are already merged, correct?

@reuvenlax
Copy link
Contributor

AFAICT this was fixed by #17778, which has already been merged.

@pabloem pabloem closed this as completed Jun 15, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants