GH-43163: [R] Fix bindings in Math group generics

[aboyoun]

Rationale for this change

When support was added for cumsum in the Math group generics it mistakenly mapped signif, expm1, log1p, cospi, sinpi, tanpi, cosh, sinh, tanh, acosh, asinh, atanh, lgamma, gamma, digamma, and trigamma to the cumulative_sum_checked arrow function. This PR corrects that mistake and well as adds support for log2, log1p, cumprod, cummax, and cummin.

What changes are included in this PR?

It contains the following changes:

1. acos, asin, cos, sin, tan now map to the *_checked arrow function variants
2. log2 maps to the log2_checked arrow function
3. log1p maps to the log1p_checked arrow function
4. cumprod maps to the cumulative_prod_checked arrow function
5. cummax maps to the cumulative_max arrow function
6. cummin maps to the cumulative_min arrow function
7. signif, expm1, cospi, sinpi, tanpi, cosh, sinh, tanh, acosh, asinh, atanh, lgamma, gamma, digamma, and trigamma properly throw an unsupported operation error

Are these changes tested?

Yes, tests were added to "Math group generics work on Array objects" in arrow/r/tests/testthat/test-compute-arith.R

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

• GitHub Issue: [R] Broken bindings in Math group generics #43163

[github-actions]

Thanks for opening a pull request!

If this is not a minor PR. Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose

Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the Openness of the Apache Arrow project.

Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?

GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

or

MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports:

PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

See also:

• Other pull requests
• Contribution Guidelines - Contributing Overview

[github-actions]

⚠️ GitHub issue #43163 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

[jonkeane]

Thank you for the contribution! Both the issue and the PR are great, detailed, to the point, and with additional tests.

I'm going to (tentatively) approve this, though will wait for CI to pass before merging — if there's any issue there I might ask for more changes

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 8e5c4e6.

There were 5 benchmark results indicating a performance regression:

• Commit Run on ec2-m5-4xlarge-us-east-2 at 2024-07-07 18:37:02Z
  • file-write (R) with compression=uncompressed, dataset=fanniemae_2016Q4, file_type=feather, input_type=dataframe, language=R
  • file-write (R) with compression=uncompressed, dataset=nyctaxi_2010-01, file_type=feather, input_type=dataframe, language=R
• and 3 more (see the report linked below)

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 129 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.