[SPARK-51583] [SQL] Improve error message when to_timestamp function has arguments of wrong type #50347
+57
−0
Conversation
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
MaxGekk
requested changes
Mar 22, 2025
| @@ -422,6 +422,13 @@ trait CheckAnalysis extends LookupCatalog with QueryErrorsBase with PlanToString | |||
| e.invalidFormat(checkRes) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| case parseToTimestamp: ParseToTimestamp if parseToTimestamp.left.dataType != StringType => | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ParseToTimestamp should support numeric, see #35887. cc @HyukjinKwon
And I am not sure that checking parameters of particular expression here in checkAnalysis is right approach. IMHO, ParseToTimestamp should care of them.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
I propose that we fix error message when to_timestamp function is called with improper argument types.
Why are the changes needed?
Users are provided with more user facing error instead of an internal one, which is more correct.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Added test.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.