-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
Add assertion that ScalarUDFImpl implementation is consistent with declared return type #17515
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
Conversation
|
This failed locally. I hope the CI will fail too. If not, need to update how the check is conditioned. |
|
The default branch picks `Int32` when all arguments are Null-typed, so it's applicable to no-args just as good.
The planner takes into account the return type a function promises to return. It even passes it back on invoke as a reminder/convenience. Verify that each function delivers on the promise.
it's a bit of FF misuse
15319d6 to
dbeb79d
Compare
dbeb79d to
25078a4
Compare
alamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @findepi ! Given we found several other bugs with this assertion I think the value is clear 👍
I had some small style suggestions, but nothing I think is needed
adriangb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense to me!
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #18597 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> A check is recently added to `invoke_with_args` that checks for the output type of the result with the expected output type from the UDF - #17515. Because the fast path misses adding the timezone, the assertion added in this PR fails. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Include timezone information in the fast path. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes, added a unit test ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#18597 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> A check is recently added to `invoke_with_args` that checks for the output type of the result with the expected output type from the UDF - apache#17515. Because the fast path misses adding the timezone, the assertion added in this PR fails. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Include timezone information in the fast path. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes, added a unit test ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #18597 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> A check is recently added to `invoke_with_args` that checks for the output type of the result with the expected output type from the UDF - #17515. Because the fast path misses adding the timezone, the assertion added in this PR fails. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Include timezone information in the fast path. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes, added a unit test and SLT test ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> No <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
The planner takes into account the return type a function promises to return. It even passes it back on invoke as a reminder/convenience. Verify that each function delivers on the promise.