-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Refactor datafusion/src/physical_plan/common.rs build_file_list to take less param and reuse code #253
Conversation
@@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ impl ExecutionPlan for HashJoinExec { | |||
num_output_rows: 0, | |||
join_time: 0, | |||
random_state: self.random_state.clone(), | |||
visited_left_side: visited_left_side, | |||
visited_left_side, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this fixes a clippy warning
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just noticed the same thing #259
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @jimexist -- looks like a nice improvement to me.
This is likely technically a "breaking change" (as the function is pub
) but I think it is minor and not likely to be a huge problem
@@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ impl ExecutionPlan for HashJoinExec { | |||
num_output_rows: 0, | |||
join_time: 0, | |||
random_state: self.random_state.clone(), | |||
visited_left_side: visited_left_side, | |||
visited_left_side, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just noticed the same thing #259
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice idea @jimexist
Which issue does this PR close?
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
Closes #123
indicates that this PR will close issue #123.Closes #254
Rationale for this change
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
What changes are included in this PR?
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
Basically a new fn without the mut ref accumulator list param is added, wrapping the original one. All call sites are updated.
Are there any user-facing changes?
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR.
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the
breaking change
label.