Skip to content

docs: add Transaction example #1436

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jdockerty
Copy link
Contributor

@jdockerty jdockerty commented Jun 12, 2025

Which issue does this PR close?

N/A, although I can link this to the Write support epic is that is useful?

What changes are included in this PR?

Adding additional documentation to the transaction module to provide a basic example of the FastAppendAction usage.

Other actions are not included at this time.

it looks like this

image

Are these changes tested?

N/A

@jdockerty jdockerty force-pushed the docs/transaction-example branch from 433a900 to 17d3e20 Compare June 12, 2025 11:49
@jdockerty jdockerty marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2025 12:00
@CTTY
Copy link
Contributor

CTTY commented Jun 12, 2025

Hi @jdockerty , thanks for this PR! I do think adding more documentation is necessary since iceberg-rs's tx semantics is slightly different from iceberg-java. There is an ongoing effort of standardlizing transaction api and will change the existing usages a little bit, maybe we can wait until that work is finished and add the new doc later:

@jdockerty
Copy link
Contributor Author

@CTTY This sounds reasonable to me, thanks for the heads up 💯

For my understanding, the linked PRs are fundamentally changing the Transaction usage and splitting things up?

E.g. there are more well-defined actions on the new path, such as an UpdateLocationAction.

It doesn't look like this affects the FastAppendAction, which is what this doc PR adds an example for. Is this code path changing soon in a follow-up, after the other PRs have been merged?

@CTTY
Copy link
Contributor

CTTY commented Jun 14, 2025

It doesn't look like this affects the FastAppendAction, which is what this doc PR adds an example for. Is this code path changing soon in a follow-up, after the other PRs have been merged?

Yes, the ongoing refactoring effort is for all transaction actions. I'm planning to work on FastAppendAction next and hopefully it will get in by next weekend

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants