-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
Minor: fix Aggregation Docs from review #12880
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
Conversation
|
LGTM, thx! |
| +-------------------------------------------------+ | ||
| ```"#) | ||
| .with_argument("expression", "Expression to operate on. Can be a constant, column, or function, and any combination of arithmetic operators.") | ||
| .with_standard_argument("expression", "The") |
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.
curious, what does "The" stand for?
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.
datafusion/datafusion/expr/src/udf_docs.rs
Line 148 in a8d3fae
| /// Add a standard "expression" argument to the documentation |
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.
Thanks for the link. "The" still looks weird to me. I guess it gets concatenated with something else.
if i follow the link correctly, this gets passed as expression_type argument, but "The" does not look like expression type.
Could we have an overload so that "The" is not needed?
eg with_standard_sole_argument could produce "The expression to operate on. Can be a constant, column, or function, and any combination of operators." without requiring "The" from the caller.
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.
I agree, it really does look strange. .with_standard_argument("expression", None) / with_standard_argument("expression", Some("String")) ?
|
@findepi Does it look good? |
per #12880 (comment), i would prefer to have these |
I think we may need to update the |
|
Thank you @jonathanc-n and @Omega359 and @findepi |
|
I think we can improve the argument handling as follow on PRs |
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #.
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Implements the changes from the review in #12861 by @Omega359
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?