chore(deps): Update sqlparser to 0.60#19672
Conversation
|
Could we address the CI failures? Looks like some tests are failing |
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
0ea9df1 to
c2dd55b
Compare
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
|
@Jefffrey ready to review. |
|
I was literally about to sit down and have codex try to do this -- thank you @Standing-Man -- taking a look now |
alamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me @Standing-Man -- thank you. THe only question I have is about the change of API to use Boxed results
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
alamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @Standing-Man and @Jefffrey
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
Jefffrey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is very tempting to not destructure the nested fields/enums because it makes the code less verbose. However, by doing so we miss fields that might be introduced in newer versions. These fields usually correspond to supporting more syntax. If we are unaware of this syntax, it means the SQL dialect we have will start accepting more and more syntax even if we don't do anything with the syntax.
I admit it might be painful and verbose to do it that way but I find its a very good way to use Rust's characteristics to help us catch this issues at compile time, instead of at runtime.
|
@Standing-Man could you please refrain from marking the comments as resolved? I see quite of few of my recent comments were marked as resolved even though no action was taken. Can you leave it to us to determine if a conversation is resolved, it makes it easier for us to review. |
40f8931 to
4cac0a2
Compare
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
4cac0a2 to
8f15b82
Compare
Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
Jefffrey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll mark this as API change because RelationPlanning is in the public API
Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Vo <jeffrey.vo.australia@gmail.com>
|
@alamb, could you take a look when you have time? |
|
Thanks @Standing-Man & @alamb |
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#19671. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> --------- Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org> Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Vo <jeffrey.vo.australia@gmail.com>
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?