jhorstmann commented on a change in pull request #1228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/1228#discussion_r796898102
##########
File path: arrow/src/util/bit_chunk_iterator.rs
##########
@@ -272,4 +462,149 @@ mod tests {
assert_eq!(u64::MAX, bitchunks.iter().last().unwrap());
assert_eq!(0x7F, bitchunks.remainder_bits());
}
+
+ #[test]
+ #[allow(clippy::assertions_on_constants)]
+ fn test_unaligned_bit_chunk_iterator() {
+ // This test exploits the fact Buffer is at least 64-byte aligned
+ assert!(ALIGNMENT > 64);
+
+ let buffer = Buffer::from(&[0xFF; 5]);
+ let unaligned = UnalignedBitChunk::new(buffer.as_slice(), 0, 40);
+
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.prefix(), Some((1 << 40) - 1));
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.suffix(), None);
+ assert!(unaligned.chunks().is_empty());
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.lead_padding(), 0);
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.trailing_padding(), 24);
+
+ let buffer = buffer.slice(1);
+ let unaligned = UnalignedBitChunk::new(buffer.as_slice(), 0, 32);
+
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.prefix(), Some((1 << 32) - 1));
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.suffix(), None);
+ assert!(unaligned.chunks().is_empty());
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.lead_padding(), 0);
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.trailing_padding(), 32);
+
+ let unaligned = UnalignedBitChunk::new(buffer.as_slice(), 5, 27);
+
+ assert_eq!(unaligned.prefix(), Some(((1 << 32) - 1) - ((1 << 5) - 1)));
Review comment:
Would moving the `count_set_bits` and `iter_set_bits_rev` functions to
the arrow crate be an option, and then hide the `UnalignedBitChunk` as their
implementation detail? I think they were added after the last release, so that
would not even be a breaking change. On the other hand, `iter_set_bits_rev`
seems very specific to the parquet usecase.
--
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]
