Adds support for dynamic dispatch in evaluation

[johnedquinn]

Relevant Issues

• None

Description

• Adds support for dynamic dispatch in evaluation
• As all of the logic for matching function resides in the planner, I updated the plan representation of dynamic dispatch to hold the expected argument types for each candidate function. This should make our implementation faster, as the checks are minute.
• As the function pathing is still being worked on, I added a temporary deprecated API to help load in functions for execution. This will be removed once pathing is added.

Other Information

• Updated Unreleased Section in CHANGELOG: NO
• Any backward-incompatible changes? YES
  • The modelling of dynamic dispatch has changed slightly in the plan representation.
• Any new external dependencies? NO
• Do your changes comply with the Contributing Guidelines
  and Code Style Guidelines? YES

License Information

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[github-actions]

Conformance comparison report-Cross Engine

	Base (legacy)	eval	+/-
% Passing	92.54%	22.10%	-70.44%
✅ Passing	5384	1286	-4098
❌ Failing	434	4532	4098
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 1269

Number failing in both: 417

Number passing in legacy engine but fail in eval engine: 4115

Number failing in legacy engine but pass in eval engine: 17
⁉️ CONFORMANCE REPORT REGRESSION DETECTED ⁉️
The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.
17 test(s) were failing in legacy but now pass in eval. Before merging, confirm they are intended to pass.
The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-LEGACY

	Base (23961f3)	162a313	+/-
% Passing	92.54%	92.54%	0.00%
✅ Passing	5384	5384	0
❌ Failing	434	434	0
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 5384

Number failing in both: 434

Number passing in Base (23961f3) but now fail: 0

Number failing in Base (23961f3) but now pass: 0

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-EVAL

	Base (23961f3)	162a313	+/-
% Passing	21.59%	22.10%	0.52%
✅ Passing	1256	1286	30
❌ Failing	4562	4532	-30
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 1256

Number failing in both: 4532

Number passing in Base (23961f3) but now fail: 0

Number failing in Base (23961f3) but now pass: 30
30 test(s) were previously failing but now pass. Before merging, confirm they are intended to pass
The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.

[yliuuuu]

Instead of returning missingValue, maybe we should consider throw a exception here for now. So we be consistent with our handling mechanism.

[johnedquinn]

In this situation, we need to return missing:

All functions return MISSING when they input data whose types do not conform to the input argument
types.

-- PartiQL Spec, Section 7.1

So, if a function hasn't been resolved to any of the candidates, we need to return missing.

[yliuuuu]

Suggested change

	val types: Array<PartiQLValueType>,
	val parameters: Array<PartiQLValueType>,

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (partiql-plugin-impl@23961f3). Click here to learn what that means.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                   @@
##             partiql-plugin-impl    #1347   +/-   ##
======================================================
  Coverage                       ?   49.27%           
  Complexity                     ?     1046           
======================================================
  Files                          ?      166           
  Lines                          ?    13395           
  Branches                       ?     2504           
======================================================
  Hits                           ?     6600           
  Misses                         ?     6138           
  Partials                       ?      657           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CLI	11.86% <0.00%> (?)
EXAMPLES	80.28% <0.00%> (?)
LANG	54.71% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[yliuuuu]

LGTM