MINOR: [Docs][C++] replace_with_mask links to replace functions

[danking]

Rationale for this change

replace_with_mask should link to the section containing it.

What changes are included in this PR?

replace_with_mask links to the section containing it.

Are these changes tested?

No.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes, but only in the docs. No code is changed.

[github-actions]

Thanks for opening a pull request!

If this is not a minor PR. Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose

Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the Openness of the Apache Arrow project.

Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?

GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

or

MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

See also:

• Other pull requests
• Contribution Guidelines - Contributing Overview

[kou]

@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs

[github-actions]

Revision: 9292a88

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-4ef5db9166

Task	Status
preview-docs

[pitrou]

The problem is that the replace-functions reference does not seem to exist. You can see that no link is generated here: http://crossbow.voltrondata.com/pr_docs/45223/cpp/compute.html

[danking]

Huh. I guess Sphinx/rST/??? gives sections ids in HTML but doesn't expose that to rST. I've added a label following the naming scheme of the structural transforms one.

[danking]

@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs

[github-actions]

Only contributors can submit requests to this bot. Please ask someone from the community for help with getting the first commit in.
The Archery job run can be found at: https://github.com/apache/arrow/actions/runs/12756883458

[kou]

@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs

[github-actions]

Revision: aaf0d24

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-63bfc892bc

Task	Status
preview-docs

[danking]

Docs now look good. Not sure what’s up with the 500s. Transient maybe?

[kou]

+1

Yes. They are unrelated.

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 8f47394.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 3 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.