-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
chore: cleanup deprecated API since version <= 40
#15027
Conversation
26f87ea
to
9653098
Compare
😍 thank you |
9653098
to
d0947f1
Compare
@@ -329,19 +311,10 @@ fn optimize_plan_node( | |||
config: &dyn OptimizerConfig, | |||
) -> Result<Transformed<LogicalPlan>> { | |||
if rule.supports_rewrite() { | |||
return rule.rewrite(plan, config); | |||
rule.rewrite(plan, config) | |||
} else { |
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.
potential semanic change here
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 we please make this return an internal error rather than silently error?
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.
Actually thinking about this more I think we should simply always call rule.rewrite now (as it is required to implement now)
I am sorry about this @qazxcdswe123 but could you maybe revert the changes to OptimizerRule in this PR (and we can work on that in a follow on PR?)
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.
Done.
How should the Optimizer
part behave? Should it just rule.rewrite
, I think some of the comment is also out of date then
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.
Very nice 🧹
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.
lgtm thanks @qazxcdswe123
@alamb I'm feeling that having removed the deprecated code and not having migration instructions in Migration guide
it would be quite a challenge to migrate from version 39 to 46 as we do not keep any traces/hints how API evolved and what is the new API
In my opinion any additional small burden related to this API removal (of APIs that have been deprecated for 6 months) is likely tiny compared to all the other major changes. Thus I don't think adding a migration guide adds much value here -- the fact the compiler has been telling people for months it is deprecated is the migration guide |
One exception is the optmizer part, which will be addressed in another commit
d0947f1
to
f37f8b0
Compare
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.
Thanks, lgtm.
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.
Thank you @qazxcdswe123 and @comphead @zhuqi-lucas 🧹
🚀 |
Thank you @qazxcdswe123 |
Originally posted by @alamb in #15016 (comment)
removed all API that are deprecated since
version <= 40