-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 251
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 typo of calculating offsets for slicing index #206
Conversation
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ include_directories(src) | |||
include_directories(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/src) # for format.pb.{h/cc} | |||
|
|||
function(add_lance_test test_name) | |||
if (NOT CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE STREQUAL "Release") |
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.
Change CMakeFile to allow python side to build ReleaseWithDebugInfo
mode , easier to see call stack.
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.
one nit/question
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ ScanBatch ScanBatch::Slice(int64_t off, int64_t length) const { | |||
auto sliced_batch = batch->Slice(off, length); | |||
decltype(indices) sliced_indices; | |||
if (indices) { | |||
sliced_indices = std::dynamic_pointer_cast<::arrow::Int32Array>(indices->Slice(offset, length)); | |||
sliced_indices = std::dynamic_pointer_cast<::arrow::Int32Array>(indices->Slice(off, length)); |
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.
not a blocker for this PR but should we go with the convention to add an _
suffix to member variables? Would that have made it clearer here?
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 ScanBatch
struct was a POD struct in the beginning, so that the caller can directly use scan_batch.batch
to access its fields. It becomes more complicated lately, we could change it to class and wrap the fields as private and with _
suffix later?
I am fine to work on it after the release.
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.
Added #207 to follow up with the remaining concerns.
Closes #203