Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: remove not function that expects two arguments #182

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 30, 2022

Conversation

sanjibansg
Copy link
Contributor

This PR removes the not function in functions_boolean.yaml that expects two boolean arguments.

cpcloud
cpcloud previously approved these changes Apr 28, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@cpcloud cpcloud left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jacques-n
Copy link
Contributor

I think we need this commit to be marked BREAKING CHANGE according to the semantic release plugin since removal of a function is a breaking change. See here.

@cpcloud , any chance you can point to a good example of what a commit message should look like?

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor

cpcloud commented May 10, 2022

Here's an example from ibis: ibis-project/ibis@3f48cb8. The commit message is:

refactor(api): remove distinct ColumnExpr API

Remove `ColumnExpr.distinct()` because it's a confusing API.

BREAKING CHANGE: Replace `t["a"].distinct()` with `t[["a"]].distinct()`.

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor

cpcloud commented May 17, 2022

@jacques-n How do you want to proceed here?

@jacques-n
Copy link
Contributor

@jacques-n How do you want to proceed here?

Isn't the commit message still missing the breaking change notice? Frankly, I don't think anyone is depending on this change so I'm not stuck on calling it a breaking change other than for rigor.

BREAKING CHANGE: use the unary `not` function to return the compliment of
input argument
@sanjibansg
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have updated the commit message to include BREAKING CHANGE, does this look good now?

Copy link
Member

@westonpace westonpace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The commit message looks correct to me now.

Copy link
Contributor

@cpcloud cpcloud left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I meant to block accidental merging until #210 is merged :)

Copy link
Contributor

@jacques-n jacques-n left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now that #210 is merged, merging this.

@jacques-n jacques-n merged commit e06067c into substrait-io:main May 30, 2022
rkondakov pushed a commit to rkondakov/substrait that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2023
avoid introducing unnecessary indirect dependencies

Co-authored-by: Victor Barua <victor.barua@datadoghq.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants