Skip to content

Conversation

@romainfrancois
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 5, 2020

@romainfrancois
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should that be a more general option perhaps ? Is this the right name ?

Copy link
Member

@nealrichardson nealrichardson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some suggestions. Looking at https://arrow.apache.org/docs/r/articles/arrow.html#arrow-to-r, I don't see that there's a more general option to have right now. We may want another option around dictionary conversion (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7657), but it's not obvious to me that these options would necessarily go together. If we later find that we want to add an umbrella option, we can add it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Re: naming, we currently have options "arrow.use_threads" (mostly private but some may need to set it given the multithreading bugs we've observed) and "arrow.dev.repo" (not advertised). I don't feel strongly about the naming convention as long as we're consistent and predictable (which, naturally, names(options()) is not).

Searching around for other conventions, I found package.option_name (cf. tidyverse/dplyr#5548) like we did with arrow.use_threads, so maybe let's standardize on that?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

using arrow.int64_downcast, happy to change

Copy link
Member

@nealrichardson nealrichardson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good, just a couple of quick final notes

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Your other comment said you were going with arrow.int64_downcast but that's not what is here. I'm ok either way though arrow.int64_downcast is more concise (and the "auto" behavior is really about what the default value is).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor thought: should we switch the order of these checks? I have to imagine that GetBoolOption would be faster than doing bounds checking on the full array.

@nealrichardson nealrichardson force-pushed the ARROW-10093/disable_int64_autoconv branch from 2b1269c to c1b40ec Compare October 7, 2020 15:00
Copy link
Member

@nealrichardson nealrichardson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants