fix: preserve column qualifier for DataFrame::with_column
#7792
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
comphead
reviewed
Oct 11, 2023
Added. Thank you for reviewing @comphead . |
alamb
approved these changes
Oct 11, 2023
| // Test issue: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/7790 | ||
| // The join operation outputs two identical column names, but they belong to different relations. | ||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn with_column_join_same_columns() -> Result<()> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I verified this fails with
Error: SchemaError(AmbiguousReference { field: Column { relation: None, name: "c1" } })
Without the code change on this branch.
devinjdangelo
pushed a commit
to devinjdangelo/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #7790.
Rationale for this change
The join operation produced two columns with identical names, but they belong to different relations.
We should preserve the relation names to distinguish between them.
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
No