jhorstmann commented on a change in pull request #1228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/1228#discussion_r797076217
##########
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:
Sounds good. For the `SlicesIterator` the current definition of
`prefix`/`lead_padding` seems to work better than my idea above. If we want to
change the behavior at some later point we could rename those methods in a
major release. Behavior change would have been bad with a public `iter` method.
--
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]
