davidhewitt commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2653788835
I just got here after discovering that the `get_field` UDF returns
`exec_err!` when passed an invalid argument type. (We treat `exec_err!` as 500
and `plan_err!` as 400 in P
jayzhan211 commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2278919160
> Only if we use refined types it would be possible to avoid I think
I guess at least we could verified it with `UserDefined` and check against
all the edge case in `co
edmondop commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2278917105
> IMO we should improve on signature instead of adding check in different
function. This not only add unnecessary overhead and let the code less
readable. And ideally we don't
jayzhan211 commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2278911574
IMO we should improve on signature instead of adding check in different
function. This not only add unnecessary overhead and let the code less readable.
--
This is an autom
edmondop commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2278752770
@jayzhan211 do you think we should start by adding an helper macro for
pattern matching branches of UDF `invoke` that should never happen?
```rust
udf_unreachable!()
jayzhan211 commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2274574830
I had file an issue to improve on signature for coercion and length + type
checking for functions https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/10507
Although I'm not sur
jayzhan211 commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2274547936
Ideally argument check should be handled by `signature` not `return_type`.
Types are also coerced correctly when it reaches `return_type`.
But before the `signature` ar
2010YOUY01 commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2254841284
> @2010YOUY01 just to confirm, for example in this case
>
>
https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/a721be1b1d863b5b15a7a945c37ec051c449c46f/datafusion/functions-nest
edmondop commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2254569681
@2010YOUY01 just to confirm, for example in this case
https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/a721be1b1d863b5b15a7a945c37ec051c449c46f/datafusion/functions-nested/src/resize.
Omega359 commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2248727261
I had done some work in aligning the errors in the past, see #9164 for
details
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please
alamb commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2248668609
I agree with what @2010YOUY01 says
Some additional comments about "Planning Error" are that for most UDFs that
provide a signature DataFusion will ensure that the function
2010YOUY01 commented on issue #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618#issuecomment-2245388504
We should definitely explain them better in the doc.
Here is my understanding. I'm wondering if anyone has additional thoughts or
if I'm understanding something wrong.
edmondop opened a new issue, #11618:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11618
### Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?
When writing a new UDF, a developer needs to decide how to perform error
management in functions that return `Result`, such as `re
13 matches
Mail list logo
