Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The test in_list_types_struct_literal fails when setting skip_failed_rules as false #5217

Closed
Tracked by #4685
HaoYang670 opened this issue Feb 8, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #5224
Closed
Tracked by #4685
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@HaoYang670
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the bug
A clear and concise description of what the bug is.

---- physical_plan::planner::tests::in_list_types_struct_literal stdout ----
thread 'physical_plan::planner::tests::in_list_types_struct_literal' panicked at 'Can not find expected in actual.

Expected:
The data type inlist should be same, the value type is Boolean, one of list expr type is Struct([Field { name: "foo", data_type: Boolean, nullable: false, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }])

Actual:
type_coercion
caused by
Internal error: Optimizer rule 'type_coercion' failed due to unexpected error: Error during planning: Can not find compatible types to compare Boolean with [Struct([Field { name: "foo", data_type: Boolean, nullable: false, dict_id: 0, dict_is_ordered: false, metadata: {} }]), Utf8]. This was likely caused by a bug in DataFusion's code and we would welcome that you file an bug report in our issue tracker', datafusion/core/src/physical_plan/planner.rs:2194:9

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. set skip_failed_rules to false
  2. run cargo test --all

Expected behavior
A clear and concise description of what you expected to happen.
The test should pass.

Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant