-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
feat: deprecate AggregateUDF: :is_nullable #18934
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Jefffrey
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.
Surprisingly fewer changes than I expected
7f99f29 to
810cae5
Compare
martin-g
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.
- https://github.com/codetyri0n/datafusion/blob/810cae5c0471a4050e2a9b4ac8580eaf5f039906/datafusion/ffi/src/udaf/mod.rs#L347 is not annotated with
#[expect(deprecated)] - https://github.com/codetyri0n/datafusion/blob/810cae5c0471a4050e2a9b4ac8580eaf5f039906/datafusion/functions-aggregate/src/count.rs#L299 - should something be done for overrides like this one ?
| self.inner.window_function_display_name(params) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn is_nullable(&self) -> bool { |
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.
Should this method be deprecated too ?
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.
yep thanks!
thanks for catching the mod.rs miss @martin-g , i had left the count.rs file untouched as i dont see the signature or the implementation getting altered much in the near future |
810cae5 to
2aeedc8
Compare
Which issue does this PR close?
AggregateUDFImpl::is_nullablein favour ofreturn_field#18882Rationale for this change
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?