[SPARK-46937][SQL][FOLLOWUP] Properly check registered function replacement #46876
Conversation
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
Contributor
Author
cloud-fan
commented
Jun 5, 2024
| builder: FunctionBuilder): Unit = { | ||
| val newFunction = (info, builder) | ||
| functionBuilders.put(name, newFunction) match { | ||
| case previousFunction if previousFunction != newFunction => |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is hurting our CI as it generates a lof of warning messages.
yaooqinn
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2024
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2024
Member
|
Thank you @cloud-fan @HyukjinKwon |
Sign up for free
to 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
A followup of #44976 .
ConcurrentHashMap#puthas a different semantic than the scala map, and it returns null if the key is new. We should update the checking code accordingly.Why are the changes needed?
avoid wrong warning messages
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
no
How was this patch tested?
manual
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
no