Skip to content
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

Deprecate arrow.MapType.ValueField & arrow.MapType.ValueType methods #35909

Closed
candiduslynx opened this issue Jun 5, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #35899
Closed

Deprecate arrow.MapType.ValueField & arrow.MapType.ValueType methods #35909

candiduslynx opened this issue Jun 5, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #35899

Comments

@candiduslynx
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the enhancement requested

Instead of those methods arrow.MapType.ElemField & arrow.MapType.Elem should be used (as they correspond to treating MapType as list-like

Component(s)

Go

zeroshade pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 6, 2023
…ValueType` methods (#35899)

### Rationale for this change

Follow-up for #35885 

### What changes are included in this PR?

* Added `ElemField() Field` to `arrow.ListLikeType` interface
* Added `ElemField() Field` to `arrow.MapType` implementation
* Added deprecation notice to `arrow.MapType.ValueField` & `arrow.MapType.ValueType`
* Fixed a bug in `go/arrow/array/map.go` (`NewMapBuilderWithType` used `ValueType` instead of `ItemType`)

### Are these changes tested?

Compile-time assertion for corresponding types.

### Are there any user-facing changes?

* Added `ElemField() Field` to `arrow.ListLikeType` interface
* Added `ElemField() Field` to `arrow.MapType` implementation
* Added deprecation notice to `arrow.MapType.ValueField` & `arrow.MapType.ValueType`

* Closes: #35909

Authored-by: candiduslynx <candiduslynx@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Topol <zotthewizard@gmail.com>
@zeroshade zeroshade added this to the 13.0.0 milestone Jun 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants