[SPARK-42326][SQL] Integrate _LEGACY_ERROR_TEMP_2099 into UNSUPPORTED_DATATYPE
#39979
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
MaxGekk
requested changes
Feb 12, 2023
sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/errors/QueryExecutionErrors.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
MaxGekk
reviewed
Feb 13, 2023
| @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ private[sql] object ArrowUtils { | |||
| case ArrowType.Null.INSTANCE => NullType | |||
| case yi: ArrowType.Interval if yi.getUnit == IntervalUnit.YEAR_MONTH => YearMonthIntervalType() | |||
| case di: ArrowType.Duration if di.getUnit == TimeUnit.MICROSECOND => DayTimeIntervalType() | |||
| case _ => throw QueryExecutionErrors.unsupportedDataTypeError(dt.toString) | |||
| case _ => throw QueryExecutionErrors.unsupportedDataTypeError(dt.asInstanceOf[DataType]) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, ArrowType and DataType are unrelated types, this fails in runtime I guess.
Just in case, do we have a test for the case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, you're right.
I added test case and new error class UNSUPPORTED_ARROWTYPE to handle the ArrowType separately since I think they're technically different objects.
MaxGekk
approved these changes
Feb 16, 2023
|
+1, LGTM. Merging to master/3.4. |
MaxGekk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2023
…TED_DATATYPE` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR proposes to integrate `_LEGACY_ERROR_TEMP_2099` into `UNSUPPORTED_DATATYPE`. And also introduce new error class `UNSUPPORTED_ARROWTYPE`. ### Why are the changes needed? We should assign proper name for LEGACY errors. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Updated UT. Closes #39979 from itholic/LEGACY_2099. Authored-by: itholic <haejoon.lee@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit 9855b13) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
snmvaughan
pushed a commit
to snmvaughan/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2023
…TED_DATATYPE` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR proposes to integrate `_LEGACY_ERROR_TEMP_2099` into `UNSUPPORTED_DATATYPE`. And also introduce new error class `UNSUPPORTED_ARROWTYPE`. ### Why are the changes needed? We should assign proper name for LEGACY errors. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Updated UT. Closes apache#39979 from itholic/LEGACY_2099. Authored-by: itholic <haejoon.lee@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit 9855b13) Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR proposes to integrate
_LEGACY_ERROR_TEMP_2099intoUNSUPPORTED_DATATYPE.And also introduce new error class
UNSUPPORTED_ARROWTYPE.Why are the changes needed?
We should assign proper name for LEGACY errors.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Updated UT.