GH-41140: [C#] Account for offset and length in union arrays#41165
Merged
CurtHagenlocher merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom Apr 12, 2024
Merged
GH-41140: [C#] Account for offset and length in union arrays#41165CurtHagenlocher merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
CurtHagenlocher merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
Conversation
|
|
CurtHagenlocher
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2024
Contributor
CurtHagenlocher
left a comment
CurtHagenlocher
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the fix!
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 48a9639. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. |
raulcd
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 8, 2024
### Rationale for this change See #41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: #41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <adreeve@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <curt@hagenlocher.org>
vibhatha
pushed a commit
to vibhatha/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
…pache#41165) ### Rationale for this change See apache#41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers. ### What changes are included in this PR? Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, this is a user facing bug fix. * GitHub Issue: apache#41140 Authored-by: Adam Reeve <adreeve@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Curt Hagenlocher <curt@hagenlocher.org>
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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.
Rationale for this change
See #41140. This makes a sliced union array behave as expected without having to manually account for the array offset unless accessing the underlying buffers.
What changes are included in this PR?
Accounts for the offset and length when getting type ids, value offsets and field arrays for sparse and dense union arrays.
Are these changes tested?
Yes, I've updated the union array tests to cover this.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes, this is a user facing bug fix.