Minor: Change no-statement error message to be clearer #11394
Merged
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
|
Thanks @itsjunetime ! I started the CI on this PR -- once that passes I think this PR will be good to go. |
|
@itsjunetime it appears that the CI job https://github.com/apache/datafusion/actions/runs/9877944034/job/27282735257?pr=11394 failed I think you can resolve this by doing |
|
@alamb thank you for catching that - I guess I forgot to run it earlier. All should be good now. |
LOL -- well the CI checks caught it, I just figured I would point it out in case you hadn't seen it (I am not really sure how other people have their github alert settings configured. I get a 🚒 hose so miss stuff sometimes) |
alamb
changed the title
alamb
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @itsjunetime -- this looks like a nice improvement to me
| .await; | ||
| assert_eq!( | ||
| plan_res.unwrap_err().strip_backtrace(), | ||
| "This feature is not implemented: The context currently only supports a single SQL statement" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thank you for adding additional test coverage
|
🚀 |
crepererum
added a commit
to crepererum/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
Amends apache#11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
crepererum
added a commit
to crepererum/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
Amends apache#11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
crepererum
added a commit
to crepererum/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
Amends apache#11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
crepererum
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
Amends #11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
Lordworms
pushed a commit
to Lordworms/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2024
* Change no-statement error message to be clearer and add tests for said change * Run fmt to pass CI
Lordworms
pushed a commit
to Lordworms/arrow-datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2024
Amends apache#11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
findepi
pushed a commit
to findepi/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2024
* Change no-statement error message to be clearer and add tests for said change * Run fmt to pass CI
findepi
pushed a commit
to findepi/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2024
Amends apache#11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
xinlifoobar
pushed a commit
to xinlifoobar/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2024
Amends apache#11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
xinlifoobar
pushed a commit
to xinlifoobar/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2024
* Change no-statement error message to be clearer and add tests for said change * Run fmt to pass CI
xinlifoobar
pushed a commit
to xinlifoobar/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
* Change no-statement error message to be clearer and add tests for said change * Run fmt to pass CI
xinlifoobar
pushed a commit
to xinlifoobar/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
Amends apache#11394 (sorry, I should have reviewed that). While reporting "not implemented" for "multiple statements" seems reasonable, I think the user should get a plan error (which roughly translates to "invalid argument") if they don't provide any statement. I don't see any reasonable way to support "no statement" ever, hence "not implemented" seems like a wrong promise.
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 #11393 .
Rationale for this change
This is a much clearer error message than previously existed in its place.
What changes are included in this PR?
This changes the error message and adds two tests: one to cover this exact use case (of no statements being provided) and another to cover the instance of multiple statements being provided (which returns an error right before the check to see if any statements were provided at all), since there were no tests for that error case.
Are these changes tested?
Yes, running
cargo testin the root of the repo produces no failures.Are there any user-facing changes?
I think this qualifies as a user-facing change, but I don't think it violates any invariants or changes any use-cases (or anything like that) in a way that would require any documentation changes. I may be wrong, though - clarification on if this qualifies as a 'user-facing change' would be appreciated.