-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 264
fix: Unsigned type related bugs #1095
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -434,8 +434,8 @@ abstract class ParquetReadSuite extends CometTestBase { | |
| i.toFloat, | ||
| i.toDouble, | ||
| i.toString * 48, | ||
| java.lang.Byte.toUnsignedInt((-i).toByte), | ||
| java.lang.Short.toUnsignedInt((-i).toShort), | ||
|
Comment on lines
-437
to
-438
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Do you check if Spark also return these values?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would say that is covered by the
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I meant that you changed this expected results to match what Comet returns, but are they same as Spark returns?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes the same as Spark |
||
| (-i).toByte, | ||
| (-i).toShort, | ||
| java.lang.Integer.toUnsignedLong(-i), | ||
| new BigDecimal(UnsignedLong.fromLongBits((-i).toLong).bigIntegerValue()), | ||
| i.toString, | ||
|
|
||
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.
Same logic doesn't apply for u32?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
copy_i32_to_u32stays in the current logic as it is for wideningi32->i64(u32), so we need to pad zeros