Improve documentation for ExecutionPlanProperties, use consistent field name #9389
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
github-actions
bot
added
physical-expr
alamb
changed the title
alamb
force-pushed
the
alamb/more_plan_docs
branch
from
5bdb95e to
fb3acf5
Compare
github-actions
bot
removed
physical-expr
alamb
commented
Feb 28, 2024
| /// | ||
| /// See also [`ExecutionPlan::maintains_input_order`] and [`Self::output_ordering`] | ||
| /// for related concepts. | ||
| fn equivalence_properties(&self) -> &EquivalenceProperties; |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
github rendered the diff strangely -- what I did was move the comments into the trait
| /// Stores output ordering of the [`ExecutionPlan`]. A `None` value represents | ||
| /// no ordering. | ||
| /// See [ExecutionPlanProperties::execution_mode] | ||
| pub execution_mode: ExecutionMode, |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A drive by change was to rename this field to match the trait
ozankabak
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2024
Contributor
ozankabak
left a comment
ozankabak
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, have one minor suggestion
| fn equivalence_properties(&self) -> &EquivalenceProperties; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| impl ExecutionPlanProperties for Arc<dyn ExecutionPlan> { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| impl ExecutionPlanProperties for Arc<dyn ExecutionPlan> { | |
| impl ExecutionPlanProperties for dyn ExecutionPlan { |
Maybe doing this will make the extension trait a bit more generally applicable?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added in 839d783
It turns out I had to also leave the
impl ExecutionPlanProperties for Arc<dyn ExecutionPlan> {Otherwise the compiler didn't seem to be able to find the relevant methods without code changes (e.g. execution_plan.as_ref()....)
mustafasrepo
approved these changes
Feb 29, 2024
Contributor
mustafasrepo
left a comment
mustafasrepo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM!. Thanks @alamb for this PR.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Draft until #9346 is merged
Which issue does this PR close?
Related to #9346
Rationale for this change
After #9346, some of the functions that were previously on ExecutionPlan were moved to an extension trait
But the docs don't show up in rustdoc
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?