GH-39865: [C++] Strip extension metadata when importing a registered extension #39866
Conversation
This file contains 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
pitrou
force-pushed
the
gh39865-c-data-interface-extensions
branch
from
99c451e
to
3c3033d
Compare
bkietz
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2024
| @@ -188,7 +186,7 @@ std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::string>> KeyValueMetadata::sorted_pairs( | |||
| return pairs; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| int KeyValueMetadata::FindKey(const std::string& key) const { | |||
| int KeyValueMetadata::FindKey(std::string_view key) const { | |||
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting merge
pitrou
force-pushed
the
gh39865-c-data-interface-extensions
branch
from
3c3033d
to
7d025df
Compare
|
CI failures are unrelated, will merge. |
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 5 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 56951fe. There were 2 benchmark results indicating a performance regression:
The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 5 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
dgreiss
pushed a commit
to dgreiss/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2024
…tered extension (apache#39866) ### Rationale for this change When importing an extension type from the C Data Interface and the extension type is registered, we would still leave the extension-related metadata on the storage type. ### What changes are included in this PR? Strip extension-related metadata on the storage type if we succeed in recreating the extension type. This matches the behavior of the IPC layer and allows for more exact roundtripping. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, unless people mistakingly rely on the presence of said metadata. * Closes: apache#39865 Authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
…extension (#39866) ### Rationale for this change When importing an extension type from the C Data Interface and the extension type is registered, we would still leave the extension-related metadata on the storage type. ### What changes are included in this PR? Strip extension-related metadata on the storage type if we succeed in recreating the extension type. This matches the behavior of the IPC layer and allows for more exact roundtripping. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, unless people mistakingly rely on the presence of said metadata. * Closes: #39865 Authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
zanmato1984
pushed a commit
to zanmato1984/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2024
…tered extension (apache#39866) ### Rationale for this change When importing an extension type from the C Data Interface and the extension type is registered, we would still leave the extension-related metadata on the storage type. ### What changes are included in this PR? Strip extension-related metadata on the storage type if we succeed in recreating the extension type. This matches the behavior of the IPC layer and allows for more exact roundtripping. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, unless people mistakingly rely on the presence of said metadata. * Closes: apache#39865 Authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
thisisnic
pushed a commit
to thisisnic/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2024
…tered extension (apache#39866) ### Rationale for this change When importing an extension type from the C Data Interface and the extension type is registered, we would still leave the extension-related metadata on the storage type. ### What changes are included in this PR? Strip extension-related metadata on the storage type if we succeed in recreating the extension type. This matches the behavior of the IPC layer and allows for more exact roundtripping. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No, unless people mistakingly rely on the presence of said metadata. * Closes: apache#39865 Authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Rationale for this change
When importing an extension type from the C Data Interface and the extension type is registered, we would still leave the extension-related metadata on the storage type.
What changes are included in this PR?
Strip extension-related metadata on the storage type if we succeed in recreating the extension type.
This matches the behavior of the IPC layer and allows for more exact roundtripping.
Are these changes tested?
Yes.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No, unless people mistakingly rely on the presence of said metadata.