Skip to content

Conversation

@Chen-Yuan-Lai
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #14115.

Rationale for this change

As #14115 (comment) says, we should use reexport in arrow as much as possible.

What changes are included in this PR?

Are these changes tested?

  1. use arrow_buffer:: xxx -> use arrow::buffer::xxx
  2. use arrow_array:: xxx -> use arrow::array::xxx

I leave some imports as it is when those modules weren't reexported in arrow

Are there any user-facing changes?

@github-actions github-actions bot added physical-expr Changes to the physical-expr crates core Core DataFusion crate common Related to common crate functions Changes to functions implementation labels Feb 5, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you so much @Chen-Yuan-Lai

I also took the liberty of removing a few more uses of arrow_buffer and removed it from the Cargo.toml files and pushed that change to this PR

It turns out OffsetBufferBuilder is still used in some places so I made an upstream PR in arrow-rs to help:

Any chance you are willing to do the same thing for arrow-array?

@github-actions github-actions bot added the substrait Changes to the substrait crate label Feb 5, 2025
], optional = true }
arrow = { workspace = true }
arrow-array = { workspace = true }
arrow-buffer = { workspace = true }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I also removed the dependency directly from Cargo.toml

@Chen-Yuan-Lai
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any chance you are willing to do the same thing for arrow-array?

Sure : )

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Feb 5, 2025

Any chance you are willing to do the same thing for arrow-array?

To be clear, I suggest we do this in a separate PR

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Feb 5, 2025

I plan to merge this PR when the CI checks pass

@alamb alamb merged commit d5ff3e7 into apache:main Feb 5, 2025
27 checks passed
@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Feb 5, 2025

Thanks again @Chen-Yuan-Lai

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

Labels

common Related to common crate core Core DataFusion crate functions Changes to functions implementation physical-expr Changes to the physical-expr crates substrait Changes to the substrait crate

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Use NullBufferBuilder instead of BooleanBufferBuilder for creating Null masks

2 participants