Extend datatype semantic equality check to include timestamps #17777
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
vegarsti
reviewed
Sep 26, 2025
|
Thanks for the review @vegarsti! I've just removed the import and run |
vegarsti
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the review @vegarsti! I've just removed the import and run
cargo fmt, I think it needs another approval sorry about that
Unfortunately I'm not a contributor/maintainer so my approval won't help you much, but this looks good!
alamb
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2025
Jefffrey
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2025
26 tasks
hareshkh
pushed a commit
to hareshkh/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
…#17777) * Extend datatype semantic equality to include timestamps * test * Respond to comments * cargo fmt --------- Co-authored-by: Shiv Bhatia <[email protected]>
|
FYI - cherry-picked this change on #18129 for |
alamb
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 20, 2025
…amps (#17777) (#18129) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> - Related to #17776 - Related to #18072 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> If I've understood semantic equality correctly, any two timestamps should meet the bar for equality regardless of time units and timezones, but the current code doesn't reflect that. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Adds a branch to this method for timestamps. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Yes ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> Yes <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Co-authored-by: Shiv Bhatia <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Shiv Bhatia <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
If I've understood semantic equality correctly, any two timestamps should meet the bar for equality regardless of time units and timezones, but the current code doesn't reflect that.
What changes are included in this PR?
Adds a branch to this method for timestamps.
Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes