> Wes, is the intended usage of type_ids to allow a producer to pass a subset columns of unions without modifying the type codes?
Yes On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 8:08 PM Fan Liya <liya.fa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Antoine, > > For Java, the physical child id is the same as the logical type code, as > the index of each child vector is the code (ordinal) of the vector's minor > type. > This leads to a problem, that only a single vector for each type can exist > in a union vector, so strictly speaking, the Java implementation is not > consistent with the Arrow specification. (This is indicated by Micah long > ago). > > Best, > Liya Fan > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:59 PM Francois Saint-Jacques < > fsaintjacq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems that the array_union_test.cc does the latter, look at how > > `expected_types` is constructed. I opened > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7265 . > > > > Wes, is the intended usage of type_ids to allow a producer to pass a > > subset columns of unions without modifying the type codes? > > > > François > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:51 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > There's some ambiguity whether a union array's "types" buffer stores > > > physical child ids, or logical type codes. > > > > > > Some of our C++ tests assume the former: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/src/arrow/array_union_test.cc#L107-L123 > > > > > > Some of our C++ tests assume the latter: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/src/arrow/array_union_test.cc#L311-L326 > > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/src/arrow/ipc/json_simple_test.cc#L943-L955 > > > > > > Critically, no validation of union data is currently implemented in C++ > > > (ARROW-6157). I can't parse the Java source code. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Antoine. > > > > >
