minor: refactor with assert_or_internal_err!() in datafusion/optimizer
#18699
+62
−46
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
Jefffrey
reviewed
Nov 14, 2025
Comment on lines
1364
to
1370
| if let Some(new_child) = new_child.take() { | ||
| Ok(Transformed::yes(new_child)) | ||
| } else { | ||
| // already took the new child | ||
| internal_err!("node had more than one input") | ||
| } | ||
| assert_or_internal_err!(new_child.is_some(), "node had more than one input"); | ||
| let Some(new_child) = new_child.take() else { | ||
| unreachable!("checked Some via assert_or_internal_err!"); | ||
| }; | ||
| Ok(Transformed::yes(new_child)) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see much benefit in this change if we introduce an unreachable anyway
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would something like this be more appropriate
let new_child = new_child.take().ok_or_else(|| {
DataFusionError::Internal("node had more than one input".to_owned())
})?;
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can do same internal error without the unreachable.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see a need to do any changes to this original code
14 tasks
Jefffrey
approved these changes
Nov 14, 2025
logan-keede
pushed a commit
to logan-keede/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 23, 2025
…izer` (apache#18699) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Part of apache#18613 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Vo <jeffrey.vo.australia@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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?
assert_or_internal_err!()across the codebase #18613Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?