minor: Refactor some unparser methods to improve readability #10788
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
alamb
approved these changes
Jun 4, 2024
findepi
pushed a commit
to findepi/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
none
Rationale for this change
I noticed while working on #10767 some unparser methods have grown unwieldy and difficult to understand. This PR attempts to break some of the more confusing methods up with the aim of making them more easily readable.
What changes are included in this PR?
LogicalPlan::Projectionnodes inselect_to_sql_recursivelyinto multiple helpersfind_agg_node_within_selectto use amatchstatement rather than severalif letsAre these changes tested?
Yes, by existing tests (no new features or bug fixes in this PR)
Are there any user-facing changes?
No, purely reorganizing code.