SingletonYe opened a new pull request, #26329:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/26329
`get_valid_types_with_udf` reports "no OneOf branch matched" with
`internal_err!`. Every alternative signature failing means the caller passed
the wrong number or types of arguments, which is a user mistake, so the error
should not be an internal one: it currently tells the user "This issue was
likely caused by a bug in DataFusion's code. Please help us to resolve this by
filing a bug report", and surfaces as `Internal error: ...` even though nothing
internal went wrong.
Return a planning error instead. The message body, the candidate signatures
and the "No function matches the given name and argument types ..." follow-up
are all unchanged; only the error kind and the bug-report boilerplate are gone.
This mirrors what a maintainer asked for on #21032 ("Can try to fix the
display + internal error reference"): one behaviour change, plus the test and
the changed user-visible expectations that come with it.
Part of #20501.
## Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can
link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123`
indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->
- Closes #.
## Rationale for this change
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in
the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
Please explain the problem you are trying to solve in terms of the
user-visible
behavior, rather than the implementation.
For example, "The code in `foo.rs` doesn't handle nulls" is a symptom of the
implementation. "COUNT(DISTINCT) returns wrong results when the column
contains
nulls" is the user-visible problem.
-->
## What changes are included in this PR?
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here, but it is
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
-->
## What is the testing strategy for this PR?
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
Briefly describe how this PR is tested, and point to the specific tests you
added. For example: 'This new feature is covered by the `sqllogictest` cases
added in `foo.slt`'.
If this PR does not add tests, explain why. For example, if the change is
already covered by existing tests, please mention it.
You should also check the `codecov` bot reply on this PR to confirm the
changed code is exercised.
-->
## Are there any user-facing changes?
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
