GH-49073: [C++] Remove the TODO asking to remove check_metadata in compare.cc#49077
Open
HyukjinKwon wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
Open
GH-49073: [C++] Remove the TODO asking to remove check_metadata in compare.cc#49077HyukjinKwon wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
HyukjinKwon wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
Conversation
HyukjinKwon
commented
Jan 30, 2026
| AssertFieldNotEqual(*u0, *u0_bad); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST(TestNestedType, FieldMetadataComparisonWithEmptyFingerprints) { |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be too much. I am fine with removing this test case if anyone thinks so. It's more to demonstrate the case of triggering check_metadata.
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting review
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
The
TypeEquals()function has a fallback path for types without fingerprints, but it was not passing through thecheck_metadataparameter toTypeEqualsVisitor. While this is an really rare corner case, the check should still be there to prevent potential mistakes when, e.g., adding new types in the future.What changes are included in this PR?
TestNestedType.FieldMetadataComparisonWithEmptyFingerprintsto verify the fixAre these changes tested?
Yes, unittest was added.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.