-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 990
Upgrade nanoarrow #20711
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
Upgrade nanoarrow #20711
Conversation
| NANOARROW_THROW_NOT_OK(ArrowSchemaSetTypeDecimal(expected_schema->children[0], | ||
| NANOARROW_TYPE_DECIMAL64, | ||
| cudf::detail::max_precision<int64_t>(), | ||
| cudf::detail::max_precision<int64_t>() - 1, |
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.
Is -1 needed because we want to pass a valid max value of 18 for NANOARROW_TYPE_DECIMAL64?
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.
Is this to fix an existing bug or due to breaking change in the new nanoarrow version?
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 was a preexisting bug in our test that was caught by newer validation in nanoarrow added in https://github.com/apache/arrow-nanoarrow/pull/717/files#diff-c970ca53f60f17860a9b1ca7b58e52276ac1c047c39d54b8d99a240f9a17c357.
kingcrimsontianyu
left a comment
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.
Looks good. Just a small question on test.
|
/merge |
Description
This PR moves us to a release of nanoarrow instead of using an intermediate dev tag. I ran into some issues with the upgrade in #20669 so I've split out those changes for testing here.
Checklist