Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Minor: verify plan output and unique field names - #20220
Merged
Merged
Conversation
alamb
commented
Feb 9, 2026
ContributorAuthor
Thank you @nuno-faria and @xanderbailey |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
de-bgunter pushed a commit
to de-bgunter/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2026
## Which issue does this PR close? - Follow on to apache#20146 from @nuno-faria ## Rationale for this change While reviewing the change with Codex, I noticed that the actual output names and their uniqueness were not verified, which I think would help the coverage ## What changes are included in this PR? Extend the test ## Are these changes tested? Yes it is only tests ## Are there any user-facing changes? No
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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?
Rationale for this change
While reviewing the change with Codex, I noticed that the actual output names and their uniqueness were not verified, which I think would help the coverage
What changes are included in this PR?
Extend the test
Are these changes tested?
Yes it is only tests
Are there any user-facing changes?
No