fix: datatype_is_logically_equal for dictionaries#20153
fix: datatype_is_logically_equal for dictionaries#20153dd-annarose wants to merge 3 commits intoapache:mainfrom
Conversation
notfilippo
left a comment
notfilippo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense to me! Thanks :)
gabotechs
left a comment
gabotechs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good! thanks @dd-annarose
dd-annarose
force-pushed
the
annarose/dict-coercion
branch
from
df92e66 to
321b285
Compare
dd-annarose
force-pushed
the
annarose/dict-coercion
branch
from
1a0c600 to
09c29d7
Compare
|
does anyone know why the |
|
(trying to retrigger something sorry for the noise everyone) |
|
No idea; maybe we missed our daily prayers to the GitHub Actions gods? Tried rerunning that specific job to no avail 🙁 |
|
Seeing if merging up from main might help 🤔 |
|
Seems to be having same problem; looks like it perhaps is running but we can't get the logs somehow? 🤔 |
|
We did recently change the runner to an AWS runner: I guess it's related to that if it's only this job being blocked; cc @blaginin |
|
lets see if it'll get picked up 👀 |
|
seems like an issue on the asf infra side, pinged the team (cc @gmcdonald), let me know if you need to merge this PR urgently |
5 participants
Which issue does this PR close?
When checking logical equivalence with
Dictionary<_, Utf8>andUtf8View, the response wasfalsewhich is not what we expect (logical equivalence should be a transitive property).What changes are included in this PR?
This PR introduces a test and a fix. The test fails without the fix. The fix is simply calling
datatype_is_logically_equalagain on thev1andothertypewhen called withDictionary<K1, V1>andothertype.Are these changes tested?
Yes.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.