-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
feat: Add validate function for a substrait::Plan
message
#281
Conversation
# For OSX, link in CoreFoundation, needed for some system symbols like | ||
# _CFRelease, _CFStringGetBytes, … |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was outside the intent of this PR, but after running into this error and attempting to reproduce locally, I found this option helped. I know very little about CMake, so any recommendations here welcome 🙇
"failed to decode Protobuf message: " | ||
"invalid wire type value: 7 (code 1001) (code 1001)\n")); | ||
std::string( | ||
"Info at plan: this version of the validator is EXPERIMENTAL. " |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that before the EXPERIMENTAL
info was not printed when the substrait plan failed to decode into either a Plan
or PlanVersion
. Given that it is otherwise always printed, it seemed more consistent to have it always be printed (even under full decode failures) and update this test, rathen than to make the code match this test.
Also refactors the parse / validation layer a bit to separate them a bit more.
899d45f
to
4b9ec97
Compare
Sorry for the force-push - I usually try not to do that, but as no one had reviewed yet and the CI was failing on commit messages, I figured I'd fix those. Next time I'll plan to make a Draft PR first, get it passing CI, then mark it for review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, thanks!
@mbrobbel - thanks! Is this ready to merge, then? If so, can you do that - I don't have permissions? |
It doesn't really matter because we squash merge in the |
OK, main merged in, let's see how CI goes... ⏳ |
And CI passed! 🎉 |
Also refactors the parse / validation layer a bit to separate them a bit more.
Addresses #280.
I'm still fairly new to this code / repo, so I took a bit of time to see if I could address #280 in the "naive" way. Naive solutions are often as good as any... but sometimes, they are naive, so let me know if there's something I'm missing or if this is something we should avoid exposing!