Skip to content

Conversation

@llama90
Copy link
Contributor

@llama90 llama90 commented Dec 14, 2023

Rationale for this change

Remove legacy code

This is a sub-PR of the PR mentioned below.

What changes are included in this PR?

  • Replace the legacy scalar CastTo implementation for Timestamp Scalar in test. It was supposed to be resolved in the mentioned PR, but it was missed.

Are these changes tested?

Yes. It is passed by existing test cases.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No.

Copy link
Member

@kou kou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@kou kou merged commit 50cc141 into apache:main Dec 14, 2023
@kou kou removed the awaiting review Awaiting review label Dec 14, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Dec 14, 2023
@conbench-apache-arrow
Copy link

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 50cc141.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…est (apache#39226)

### Rationale for this change

Remove legacy code

This is a sub-PR of the PR mentioned below.

* apache#39060  

### What changes are included in this PR?

* Replace the legacy scalar `CastTo` implementation for Timestamp Scalar in test. It was supposed to be resolved in the mentioned PR, but it was missed. 

### Are these changes tested?

Yes. It is passed by existing test cases.

### Are there any user-facing changes?

No.

Authored-by: Hyunseok Seo <hsseo0501@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants