refactor(proto): migrate UnnestExec serde - #23739
Conversation
The central protobuf dispatcher must know every built-in execution plan, which separates UnnestExec serialization from the type that owns it. Move encoding and decoding to plan-local hooks while retaining the deprecated helpers as compatibility wrappers. Extend roundtrip coverage to include non-default unnest options. CLOSES apache#23510 Signed-off-by: Jiawei Zhao <Phoenix500526@163.com>
|
Thank you for opening this pull request! Reviewer note: cargo-semver-checks reported the current version number is not SemVer-compatible with the changes in this pull request (compared against the base branch). Details |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #23739 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.69% 80.68% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 1089 1089
Lines 368424 368486 +62
Branches 368424 368486 +62
==========================================
+ Hits 297307 297317 +10
- Misses 53406 53451 +45
- Partials 17711 17718 +7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| .recursions | ||
| .iter() | ||
| .map(|recursion| datafusion_common::RecursionUnnestOption { | ||
| input_column: recursion.input_column.as_ref().unwrap().into(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just flagging there's an inline panic here (input_column/output_column .as_ref().unwrap()) — not introduced by this PR (it's carried over verbatim from the old UnnestOptions::from_proto), but something worth fixing if you want to open a followup after we merge this.
## 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 apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#23510. ## 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. --> The central protobuf dispatcher must know every built-in execution plan, which separates UnnestExec serialization from the type that owns it. Move encoding and decoding to plan-local hooks while retaining the deprecated helpers as compatibility wrappers. Extend roundtrip coverage to include non-default unnest options. ## 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. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## 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 `api change` label. --> Signed-off-by: Jiawei Zhao <Phoenix500526@163.com>
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
The central protobuf dispatcher must know every built-in execution plan, which separates UnnestExec serialization from the type that owns it.
Move encoding and decoding to plan-local hooks while retaining the deprecated helpers as compatibility wrappers. Extend roundtrip coverage to include non-default unnest options.
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?