rdblue commented on a change in pull request #1747:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/1747#discussion_r529030670
##########
File path: api/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/expressions/Expressions.java
##########
@@ -123,6 +123,22 @@ public static Expression not(Expression child) {
return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.NOT_NULL, expr);
}
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> isNaN(String name) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.IS_NAN, ref(name));
+ }
+
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> isNaN(UnboundTerm<T> expr) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.IS_NAN, expr);
+ }
+
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> notNaN(String name) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.NOT_NAN, ref(name));
+ }
+
+ public static <T> UnboundPredicate<T> notNaN(UnboundTerm<T> expr) {
+ return new UnboundPredicate<>(Expression.Operation.NOT_NAN, expr);
+ }
Review comment:
I think it is important to catch problems as early as possible, so I'd
rather not add logic to binding if we can do it here. I see what you mean that
it would require more test changes, but I think we could avoid that problem by
simply rejecting predicates that are passed NaN, just like these methods reject
null literals. That's an easy way to get this PR done and not over-complicate
binding. What do you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
