[SPARK-12638] [API DOC] Parameter explanation not very accurate for rdd function "aggregate"

[Wenpei]

Currently, RDD function aggregate's parameter doesn't explain well, especially parameter "zeroValue".
It's helpful to let junior scala user know that "zeroValue" attend both "seqOp" and "combOp" phase.

[rxin]

Jenkins, test this please.

[srowen]

I like this, but how about adding similar docs to other similar methods like treeAggregate, fold, etc? the semantics of fold were brought up just last week, for example. Your point about it being per-partition is quite pertinent there too.

[Wenpei]

Thanks, @srowen I will try to add parameter explanation to fold.
But for treeAggregate, it has explanation like below to refer to Aggregate function. I thought it's enough for user.

• Aggregates the elements of this RDD in a multi-level tree pattern.
  *
• @param depth suggested depth of the tree (default: 2)
• @see [[org.apache.spark.rdd.RDD#aggregate]]

[srowen]

LGTM

[Wenpei]

thanks,@srowen
@rxin There is no Jenkins report, anything need for me?

[SparkQA]

Test build #2334 has finished for PR 10587 at commit 35b4bc8.

• This patch fails Scala style tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[Wenpei]

Fix scala style test failed.
Please test again, thanks.

[SparkQA]

Test build #2345 has finished for PR 10587 at commit 679e62f.

• This patch fails Scala style tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[Wenpei]

Fix it.
But I found for jenkins result, line number did not march with correct line.

For example, jenkins result
[error] /home/jenkins/workspace/NewSparkPullRequestBuilder/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/RDD.scala:976:58: Whitespace at end of line

But real line number should be 1077. Is that a issues?

Please test again, jenkins.

[srowen]

It looks unrelated to your change, I agree. I can try retesting, but you may somehow need a rebase to work around it.

[SparkQA]

Test build #2346 has finished for PR 10587 at commit 11a929b.

• This patch passes all tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[Wenpei]

@srowen it pass test now. ready for merge.

Thanks for review.

Wenpei

[srowen]

There are some typos now, like conbOp instead of combOp. Also there's a dangling phrase in both starting with "-" which is supposed to join the previous sentence? while you're here you can back-tick Nil

[Wenpei]

Thank you @srowen, I refine parameter explanation base on your suggestion.
Pls take a look.

[SparkQA]

Test build #2361 has finished for PR 10587 at commit d045ea9.

• This patch fails PySpark unit tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[Wenpei]

@srowen Do you know what happened?
I check the failed log but don't know why. EVN issues?

[SparkQA]

Test build #2363 has finished for PR 10587 at commit d045ea9.

• This patch fails Spark unit tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[srowen]

I can't imagine it's related as it's just a doc change, so must be flaky tests, but let me just run it again

[SparkQA]

Test build #2364 has finished for PR 10587 at commit d045ea9.

• This patch fails PySpark unit tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[Wenpei]

Same error with #10685. Wait hot fix #10704 take effect.

[Wenpei]

retest this please.

[SparkQA]

Test build #2369 has finished for PR 10587 at commit d045ea9.

• This patch passes all tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[srowen]

merged to master/1.6