jhorstmann commented on PR #1589: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/1589#issuecomment-1107475810
> Yes I have found the handling of this field to be very inconsistent, imo it shouldn't be possible to associate a null bitmask with a field that says it isn't nullable. Would you be able to create a ticket? I created #1611 for validating the `nullable` flag on `StructArray`. Not sure how good my description there is, feel free to add more information or other ideas. > I presume you mean that the previous behaviour was wrong, and is now fixed, and not that this has broken behaviour that was previously correct? Sorry, my description probably was not very clear. In one test I [had to compare individual elements of a ListArray](https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/1499/files#diff-036c91a4b91e350837448f27da4ac4c0b43cfb477571330ac1f37654b0e2c172R1510 ) because the previous equality implementation did not work with different offsets. With the changes from this PR that test can now use a simple `assert_eq`. The other test with `StructArray` now also works with these changes and `assert_eq`, the other missing piece was explicitly creating the array with nullable fields. Whether we should change the comparision semantic to exclude the nullable flag is probably out of scope for this PR, I don't have a strong opinion either way. A big "Thank You" for diving into this code and fixing it! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@arrow.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
