-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 996
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
Fix inference of BigQuery ARRAY types. #2245
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Judah Rand <17158624+judahrand@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Judah Rand <17158624+judahrand@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
@judahrand this change looks good! do you mind adding a test in test_inference.py
? it looks like none of the tests in there are testing bigquery (or redshift) type inference
@felixwang9817 I kinda feel like if I do that it is certain to uncover more broken things and this PR will balloon. Do you think the testing should be a separate PR? This isn't making it worse as it is already broken 😛 |
@judahrand that seems reasonable - would appreciate if you could send out a follow up PR (not urgent) with a test! will lgtm |
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.
/lgtm
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: felixwang9817, judahrand The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What this PR does / why we need it:
BigQuery arrays are currently handled incorrectly for many cases in feature type inference.
This PR is a subset of #2028. Some of the other issues that PR dealt with have subsequently been fixed.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: