[SPARK-48197][SQL] Avoid assert error for invalid lambda function #46475
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
|
Is the UT failure relevant, @cloud-fan ? |
allisonwang-db
approved these changes
May 8, 2024
| throw new AnalysisException( | ||
| errorClass = "INVALID_LAMBDA_FUNCTION_CALL.NON_HIGHER_ORDER_FUNCTION", | ||
| messageParameters = Map( | ||
| "class" -> builder.getClass.getCanonicalName)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just curious is there a way to use org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.Ceil instead of
"class" : "org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.expressions.CeilExpressionBuilder$"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so, a builder can even create different expressions based on the input data types.
|
thanks for review, merging to master/3.5! |
cloud-fan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? `ExpressionBuilder` asserts all its input expressions to be resolved during lookup, which is not true as the analyzer rule `ResolveFunctions` can trigger function lookup even if the input expression contains unresolved lambda functions. This PR updates that assert to check non-lambda inputs only, and fail earlier if the input contains lambda functions. In the future, if we use `ExpressionBuilder` to register higher-order functions, we can relax it. ### Why are the changes needed? better error message ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no, only changes error message ### How was this patch tested? new test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? no Closes #46475 from cloud-fan/minor. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit 7e79e91) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, this seems to break branch-3.5. Could you take a look at this, @cloud-fan and @allisonwang-db ?
[info] - ansi/higher-order-functions.sql *** FAILED *** (782 milliseconds)
[info] ansi/higher-order-functions.sql
[info] Expected "...ORDER_FUNCTION",
[info] "[sqlState" : "42K0D",
[info] "]messageParameters" :...", but got "...ORDER_FUNCTION",
[info] "[]messageParameters" :..." Result did not match for query #2
[info] select ceil(x -> x) as v (SQLQueryTestSuite.scala:876)
|
It seems that there are four failures at Java 17 at least. Let me regenerate them. |
|
Here is a follow-up. |
dongjoon-hyun
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR is a follow-up to regenerate golden files for branch-3.5 - #46475 ### Why are the changes needed? To recover branch-3.5 CI. - https://github.com/apache/spark/actions/runs/9011670853/job/24786397001 ``` [info] *** 4 TESTS FAILED *** [error] Failed: Total 3036, Failed 4, Errors 0, Passed 3032, Ignored 3 [error] Failed tests: [error] org.apache.spark.sql.SQLQueryTestSuite ``` ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the CIs. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #46514 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-48197. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
JacobZheng0927
pushed a commit
to JacobZheng0927/spark
that referenced
this pull request
May 11, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? `ExpressionBuilder` asserts all its input expressions to be resolved during lookup, which is not true as the analyzer rule `ResolveFunctions` can trigger function lookup even if the input expression contains unresolved lambda functions. This PR updates that assert to check non-lambda inputs only, and fail earlier if the input contains lambda functions. In the future, if we use `ExpressionBuilder` to register higher-order functions, we can relax it. ### Why are the changes needed? better error message ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no, only changes error message ### How was this patch tested? new test ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? no Closes apache#46475 from cloud-fan/minor. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.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?
ExpressionBuilderasserts all its input expressions to be resolved during lookup, which is not true as the analyzer ruleResolveFunctionscan trigger function lookup even if the input expression contains unresolved lambda functions.This PR updates that assert to check non-lambda inputs only, and fail earlier if the input contains lambda functions. In the future, if we use
ExpressionBuilderto register higher-order functions, we can relax it.Why are the changes needed?
better error message
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
no, only changes error message
How was this patch tested?
new test
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
no