[SPARK-49521][DOCS] Remove the ambiguous term “constructor” from the documentation for logical plan nodes #47999
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
|
The PR resolves the concern here, @cloud-fan would you please review? |
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
zhengruifeng
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, LGTM. Thank you, @xinrong-meng and all.
Merged to master.
|
Thank you @dongjoon-hyun and all! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
There are three uses of "constructor" in the documentation for logical plan nodes, which are confusing due to their overlap in meaning with Scala constructors.
Why are the changes needed?
For clearer documentation without ambiguity.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Doc changes only.
How was this patch tested?
Existing tests.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.