Minor: Move ObjectStoreRegistry to datafusion_execution crate
#5478
Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[cfg(test)] | ||
| mod tests { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these tests are of ListingTableUrl which is in core/src/datasource/listing I moved them here
| @@ -255,34 +245,4 @@ mod tests { | |||
| ObjectStoreUrl::parse("s3://username:password@host:123/foo").unwrap_err(); | |||
| assert_eq!(err.to_string(), "Execution error: ObjectStoreUrl must only contain scheme and authority, got: /foo"); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moved this into the datasource/listing module
|
|
||
| use crate::datasource::datasource::TableProviderFactory; | ||
| use crate::datasource::listing_table_factory::ListingTableFactory; | ||
| use crate::datasource::object_store::ObjectStoreRegistry; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the point of this PR is to remove the dependency here on datasource
The other references to datasource are removed in #5477
|
Benchmark runs are scheduled for baseline = 07b07d5 and contender = 55c7c4d. 55c7c4d is a master commit associated with this PR. Results will be available as each benchmark for each run completes. |
3 participants
Which issue does this PR close?
Part of #1754
Rationale for this change
I am trying to extract the physical_plan code into its own crate; and to do so I need to remove the circular dependencies between core --> datasource --> execution --> datasource
The
ObjectStoreRegistryis used at runtime, so move it into the datafusion_execution crateSee more details in #1754 (comment)
What changes are included in this PR?
ObjectStoreRegistryto datafusion_execution crateAre these changes tested?
Covered by existing tests
Are there any user-facing changes?
No, I added a
pub useso this code movement should not affect users