Fix comment on WRITE_OBJECT_STORE_PARTITIONED_PATHS table property

[smaheshwar-pltr]

The code comment above the WRITE_OBJECT_STORE_PARTITIONED_PATHS constant in TableProperties was incorrect - partition values are excluded when this property is set to false, not true, and object store is enabled, as stated in the docs. This PR fixes the comment to be consistent.

[ebyhr]

I believe this change is correct. The usage is:

iceberg/core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/LocationProviders.java

Lines 130 to 134 in b9b61b1

	this.includePartitionPaths =
	PropertyUtil.propertyAsBoolean(
	properties,
	TableProperties.WRITE_OBJECT_STORE_PARTITIONED_PATHS,
	TableProperties.WRITE_OBJECT_STORE_PARTITIONED_PATHS_DEFAULT);

[amogh-jahagirdar]

Nit: While this comment is correct, I feel like having the comment when the property is true reads a little bit more easy.

// Includes the partition values in the path when set to true and object store is enabled

[nastra]

+1 to changing the comment as @amogh-jahagirdar suggested

[smaheshwar-pltr]

Hmm, I feel like this suggested wording could be misinterpreted as "object store must be enabled for partition values to be included" (but default location provision includes partition values), just as this PR's proposed wording could be read as, "to exclude partition values, you should disable this property and enable object store" (which is correct, modulo custom location provision).

I agree that a comment on when the property is true reads better but this PR's wording seems the least misunderstandable IMHO.

@ebyhr @amogh-jahagirdar @nastra thank you for reviewing - let me know your thoughts! Happy to be overruled here and make the suggested change if I'm being too pedantic, or to take other suggestions 😄

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the [email protected] list. Thank you for your contributions.

[smaheshwar-pltr]

Any update on this?

Happy to change if #11798 (comment) is baseless. I think fixing a misleading comment would be an improvement though.