Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add valid Distinct case for aggregation - #11814
Merged
Merged
Conversation
mustafasrepo
approved these changes
Aug 5, 2024
mustafasrepo
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM!. Thanks @mertak-synnada for this PR.
alamb
reviewed
Aug 5, 2024
| .iter() | ||
| .enumerate() | ||
| .all(|(idx, f_idx)| idx == *f_idx) | ||
| if dep.source_indices.len() >= field_count |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this change required for the test to pass? Or is it a "drive by" cleanup (made while you were making the change already but not required)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one was required to make the test pass
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice -- so this also fixes a bug 🚀
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #.
Rationale for this change
This change is for satisfying the related conversation: #11781 (comment)
What changes are included in this PR?
A valid test case for distinct and group-by usage
Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
No