vibhatha commented on code in PR #15288:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/15288#discussion_r1070186392
##########
cpp/src/arrow/compute/exec/plan_test.cc:
##########
@@ -322,26 +306,16 @@ void TestSourceSink(
std::string source_factory_name,
std::function<Result<std::vector<ElementType>>(const BatchesWithSchema&)>
to_elements) {
- ASSERT_OK_AND_ASSIGN(auto executor, arrow::internal::ThreadPool::Make(1));
- ExecContext exec_context(default_memory_pool(), executor.get());
- ASSERT_OK_AND_ASSIGN(auto plan, ExecPlan::Make(exec_context));
- AsyncGenerator<std::optional<ExecBatch>> sink_gen;
-
auto exp_batches = MakeBasicBatches();
ASSERT_OK_AND_ASSIGN(auto elements, to_elements(exp_batches));
auto element_it_maker = [&elements]() {
return MakeVectorIterator<ElementType>(elements);
};
-
- ASSERT_OK(Declaration::Sequence({
- {source_factory_name,
- OptionsType{exp_batches.schema,
element_it_maker}},
- {"sink", SinkNodeOptions{&sink_gen}},
- })
- .AddToPlan(plan.get()));
-
- ASSERT_THAT(StartAndCollect(plan.get(), sink_gen),
-
Finishes(ResultWith(UnorderedElementsAreArray(exp_batches.batches))));
+ Declaration plan(source_factory_name,
+ OptionsType{exp_batches.schema, element_it_maker});
+ ASSERT_OK_AND_ASSIGN(auto result,
+ DeclarationToExecBatches(std::move(plan),
/*use_threads=*/false));
Review Comment:
Not really, just left the test case as it hasn’t used parallel mode. Should
we prefer testing both modes at all times?
PS: I sort of did that, but again removed that thinking I am introducing
which is not in the current test cases.
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
