-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
ARROW-7514: [C#] Make GetValueOffset Obsolete #6333
Closed
HashidaTKS
wants to merge
3
commits into
apache:master
from
HashidaTKS:ARROW-7514_make_getvalueoffset_obsolete
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
The check is duplicated of the check in
GetValueLength
.How about this?
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.
Initially, I implemented as below to avoid duplication of checks.
However, I thought the intention was a little difficult to understand, so it was implemented like current.
Also, if we don't care about the type of exception, we can simply remove the check.
In that case, this method throws
IndexOutOfRangeException
which ValueOffsets[index] throws.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.
I understand.
How about adding a new helper private method to validate index:
and use it in
GetValueLength
andGetBytes
?@eerhardt What do you think about this case?
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.
Typically we do care about the type of exception. Bubbling up an
IndexOutOfRangeException
looks like a bug in our library - similar to if you let somethingNullReferenceException
. See the Design Guidelines for more info about this.Instead, it is better to throw an
ArgumentOutOfRangeException
.I think a helper like
ValidateIndex
makes the most sense. Also note that as currently written you are validating the index twice - once inGetBytes
and then again whenGetBytes
callsGetValueLength
. Not a huge issue, just something I noticed.