minor: fix test and remove println in tests #6935
Conversation
andygrove
changed the title
| let array = vec![Some(123456789)]; | ||
| let array = create_decimal_array(array, 24, 2).unwrap(); | ||
| println!("{:?}", array); | ||
| let array = create_decimal_array(array, 24, 4).unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you explain what exactly this is fixing about the test? It seems like it changes the size of the input decimal from (24,2) to (24,4).
This seems fine to me, but also not obvious to me why we are changing the test
If the idea is to cover a different code path, perhaps we should leave the existing coverage for (24,2) and add a new test for (24,4) 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the review @alamb
Here I'm testing different conversions, In the previous PR #6836 , I added the decimal validation and to test that created 4 tests -
test_decimal_to_decimal_throw_error_on_precision_overflow_same_scale- tests (24,2) to (6,2)test_decimal_to_decimal_throw_error_on_precision_overflow_lower_scale- this is the current changes, it was meant to test conversion overflow from (24,4) to (6,2) but input I was creating a input decimal array of (24,2). Hence changed the input decimal array to be of type (24,4)test_decimal_to_decimal_throw_error_on_precision_overflow_greater_scale- tests (24,2) to (6,3).test_decimal_to_decimal_throw_error_on_precision_overflow_diff_typethis one between different type Decimal128 to Decimal256.
This PR fixes the second tests input creation, hope this clarifies.
|
Thank you for the contributions @himadripal and @andygrove -- it is exciting to see this work moving forward in arrow-rs |
|
Thanks @himadripal -- makes sense to me |
3 participants
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #.
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are there any user-facing changes?