-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Drop missing from juliaeltype
if ValidityBitmap
is all valid.
#477
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
juliaeltype
if ValidityBitmap
is all valid.
Fixes #283 |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #477 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.50% 5.11% -82.39%
==========================================
Files 26 25 -1
Lines 3280 3208 -72
==========================================
- Hits 2870 164 -2706
- Misses 410 3044 +2634
... and 22 files with indirect coverage changes 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
@@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ end | |||
|
|||
Base.size(p::ValidityBitmap) = (p.ℓ,) | |||
nullcount(x::ValidityBitmap) = x.nc | |||
Base.all(x::ValidityBitmap) = x.nc == 0 |
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 don't love overloading all
here; can we just call this allvalid
? I don't think we need to overload anything for this.
@@ -540,13 +555,13 @@ function UnionT(f::Meta.Field, convert) | |||
UT = UnionT{ | |||
f.type.mode, | |||
typeids, | |||
Tuple{(juliaeltype(x, buildmetadata(x), convert) for x in f.children)...}, | |||
Tuple{(juliaeltype(x, buildmetadata(x), convert, false) for x in f.children)...}, |
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.
Can you help me understand why we hard-code false
in a number of places for the allvalid
argument? vs. in other places calling all(validity)
?
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 think I'm fine going this direction. I'd like to think a bit on if there may be unintended consequences here, but it seems like it should be strictly an improvement.
Ok, I will fix the tests 😃 |
Fixes #384
Fixes #373
This does fail a number of tests, which we can fix after we agree on the direction of this PR.