[SPARK-54990][PYTHON] Fix how classproperty is implemented in session.py #53772
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
JIRA Issue Information=== Improvement SPARK-54990 === This comment was automatically generated by GitHub Actions |
HyukjinKwon
previously approved these changes
Jan 12, 2026
HyukjinKwon
dismissed
their stale review
Oh actually seems linter is failing:
python/pyspark/sql/session.py:613: error: Argument 1 to "classproperty" has incompatible type "Callable[[SparkSession], Builder]"; expected "Callable[[type], Builder]" [arg-type]
Found 1 error in 1 file (checked 1185 source files)
1
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Implement
classpropertycorrectly with descriptor.Why are the changes needed?
The current implementation is unnecessarily complicated. It does not need to inherit
propertyand use it's methods. Also it confuses type checker.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Need to pass CI
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No