chore: Finish refactor with assert_or_internal_err!()
#18790
Merged
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
github-actions
bot
added
optimizer
14 tasks
Jefffrey
reviewed
Nov 18, 2025
datafusion/common/src/scalar/mod.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
1717
to
1724
| let validation = validate_decimal_precision_and_scale::<Decimal32Type>( | ||
| *precision, *scale, | ||
| ) { | ||
| return _internal_err!("Invalid precision and scale {err}"); | ||
| } | ||
| if *scale < 0 { | ||
| return _internal_err!("Negative scale is not supported"); | ||
| } | ||
| ); | ||
| assert_or_internal_err!( | ||
| validation.is_ok(), | ||
| "Invalid precision and scale {}", | ||
| validation.unwrap_err() | ||
| ); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems more appropriate to do a map_err here? (Same for below)
Comment on lines
779
to
782
| assert_or_internal_err!( | ||
| union.inputs.len() >= 2, | ||
| "Protobuf deserialization error, Union was require at least two input." | ||
| ); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should technically be an exec error I guess?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It depends I think. For SQL/Dataframe APIs, this should be an internal error, however for low level rust APIs, technically you can construct such plan and make it an execution error. So I slightly prefer to leave it as is.
Jefffrey
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2025
martin-g
reviewed
Nov 18, 2025
| assert_eq_or_internal_err!( | ||
| (iv.months, iv.days, iv.nanoseconds), | ||
| (0, 0, 0), | ||
| "row {i}: expected (0,0,0), got ({},{},{})", |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: assert_eq_or_internal_err() already prints the left and right values (
datafusion/datafusion/common/src/error.rs
Line 838 in 0304cda
| assert_eq_or_internal_err!( | ||
| (iv.months, iv.days, iv.nanoseconds), | ||
| (0, 0, 0), | ||
| "expected scalar 0s, got ({},{},{})", |
Co-authored-by: Martin Grigorov <martin-g@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Martin Grigorov <martin-g@users.noreply.github.com>
logan-keede
pushed a commit
to logan-keede/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 23, 2025
## 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. --> - Closes 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. --> apache#18613 is almost finished, I searched the codebase and refactor all the remaining patterns in this PR. Such assertion macros have been scattered to the codebase, and I have also added some error handling doc in apache#18762, so later we can follow this pattern and continue adopting those macros. ## 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: Martin Grigorov <martin-g@users.noreply.github.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
#18613 is almost finished, I searched the codebase and refactor all the remaining patterns in this PR.
Such assertion macros have been scattered to the codebase, and I have also added some error handling doc in #18762, so later we can follow this pattern and continue adopting those macros.
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?