Add additional coverage for StringViewArray comparisons #9257
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
alamb
force-pushed
the
alamb/more_tests_232
branch
from
bf12f4b to
aaeb282
Compare
alamb
changed the title
alamb
commented
Jan 23, 2026
| let b = arrow_array::StringViewArray::from(vec![Some("ac")]); | ||
| assert!(!has_buffers(&a)); | ||
| assert!(!has_buffers(&b)); | ||
| assert_eq!(compare_byte_view(&a, 0, &b, 0), Ordering::Less); |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these tests feel redundant to me, but there are multiple paths through the comparison code (elg ArrayOrd::is_lt vs lt so we need to write multiple tests to cover them
zhuqi-lucas
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2026
Dandandan
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2026
Contributor
|
Thank you @alamb, I agree this was missing quite a bit! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
While (posthumously) reviewing #9250 from @Dandandan and @zhuqi-lucas I noticed that some of the special case branches are not covered.
What changes are included in this PR?
Add some more tests to cover all the special cases
Are these changes tested?
Yes, only tests
Are there any user-facing changes?