-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 750
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
Update test output for Rust 1.58 release #1173
Conversation
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.
I plan to merge this PR in to get the CI green again in this repo, but I would love to hear any thoughts that @sunchao has (e.g. if the change in rust has now introduced a bug in parquet)
@@ -1081,9 +1081,9 @@ mod tests { | |||
fn test_convert_float_to_string() { | |||
assert_eq!(format!("{}", Field::Float(1.0)), "1.0"); | |||
assert_eq!(format!("{}", Field::Float(9.63)), "9.63"); | |||
assert_eq!(format!("{}", Field::Float(1e-15)), "0.000000000000001"); | |||
assert_eq!(format!("{}", Field::Float(1e-15)), "1e-15"); |
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.
I don't really know if this is correct output or not
The code that handles formatting this is here: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/blob/master/parquet/src/record/api.rs#L716-L729
Which came in from @sunchao in the original donation 3 years ago in 6d12823
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.
I have the same question as @jhorstmann on #1169
I don't know why we assert that exact formatting though. Also seems intentional because there is a range check in fmt::Display for parquet::record::api.
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.
Only just seeing this, but I created #1178 which preserves the old behaviour as far as I could guess at it. Happy for you to go with this PR though if you would prefer
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.
#1178 looks better to me .
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1173 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.59% 82.63% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 173 173
Lines 50919 50858 -61
==========================================
- Hits 42055 42026 -29
+ Misses 8864 8832 -32
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Rationale for this change
Test output changed with rust 1.58
What changes are included in this PR?
Kudos to @jhorstmann for researching both of those
Are there any user-facing changes?
No