Repository navigation
[57_maintenance] fix: use correct length in runarray validation - #11801
Merged
Merged
Conversation
<!-- It is not necessary to raise an issue, but it is encouraged if it is a non-trivial enhancement/bug. If this PR relates to an existing issue, but does not fully resolve it, please change the wording below from "Closes #NNN" to "Relates to #NNN" or "Part of false closing an issue. --> - Closes apache#11587 <!-- 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. Please try to explain the problem you are trying to solve in terms of the user-visible behavior, rather than the implementation. --> Fix incorrect validation of run arrays <!-- 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. --> Use correct parent logical length when validating run values <!-- 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, if so identify these tests)? If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence such as benchmark results. DO NOT simply paste a list of commands ran to verify the code; this is what our CI is for and it pollutes the PR. ONLY explain if testing was included with this PR, or why it wasn't. --> Yes <!-- Significant user-facing changes include: - Breaking public API change - Significant change to existing functionality (e.g. function returns something different) These need to be explicitly called out to ensure we have proper documentation if required and to ensure we follow proper semantic versioning. DO NOT restate the changes of this PR; if a bug was fixed and already explained above, we don't need this to be restated as a user-facing change. --> No --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>
4 of 5 tasks
github-actions
Bot
added
the
arrow-core
Jefffrey
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 22, 2026 12:23
alamb
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2026
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
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.
57.3.2(October 2026) #11666Cherry-pick of a9455d4