The original ask for having the ability to introspect whether a field is
set or not was in BEAM-2261 and it was to improve the logic around default
values.

I filed BEAM-7180 for making validation check if the field is set or not vs
the current comparison which is null or not.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 5:21 PM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:

> Kyle your right and it makes sense from the doc but from a user point of
> view the validation is really asking if the field has been set or not.
> Differentiation between unset and set has come up in the past for
> PipelineOptions.
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 5:19 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Validation.Required: "This criteria specifies that the value must be
>> not null. Note that this annotation should only be applied to methods
>> that return nullable objects." [1]
>>
>> My guess is you should probably try the Integer class instead.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/451af5133bc0a6416afa7b1844833c153f510181/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/options/Validation.java#L33-L34
>>
>> Kyle Weaver | Software Engineer | github.com/ibzib |
>> kcwea...@google.com | +16502035555
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 5:12 PM Ning Wang <wangnin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, Beam devs,
>> >
>> > I am working on a runner and found something not working as expected.
>> >
>> > I have this field in my H*PipelineOptions,
>> > ```
>> >   @Description("Number of Containers")
>> >   @Validation.Required
>> >   int getNumberOfContainers();
>> >   void setNumberOfContainers(int value);
>> > ```
>> > and I am calling this validation function,
>> > ```
>> > H*PipelineOptions options =
>> >     PipelineOptionsValidator.validate(H*PipelineOptions.class, opts);
>> > ```
>> >
>> > I am expecting that if --numberOfContainer is missing in command line,
>> there should be an error, however it seems like the value is set to 0 by
>> default.
>> >
>> > Is this the expected behavior? Or is there anything missing? My Beam
>> version is 2.11.0.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance!
>> > --ning
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to