[SPARK-46634][SQL] literal validation should not drill down to null fields #44640
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Contributor
Author
|
cc @MaxGekk |
yaooqinn
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2024
MaxGekk
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2024
LuciferYang
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2024
Member
|
Merged to master. Thank you, @cloud-fan and all! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This fixes a minor bug in literal validation. The contract of
InternalRowis people should callisNullAtinstead of relying on thegetfunction to return null.InternalRowis an abstract class and it's not guaranteed that thegetfunction can work for null field. This PR fixes the literal validation to checkisNullAtbefore getting the field value.Why are the changes needed?
Fix bugs for specific
InternalRowimplementations.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
new test
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No