[CALCITE-7719] Field access on an element of a ROW array built by a sub-query raises IllegalArgumentException - #5182
Open
mihaibudiu wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
[CALCITE-7719] Field access on an element of a ROW array built by a sub-query raises IllegalArgumentException#5182mihaibudiu wants to merge 1 commit into
mihaibudiu wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…ub-query raises IllegalArgumentException Signed-off-by: Mihai Budiu <mbudiu@feldera.com>
Contributor
Author
|
@julianhyde this is a small fix, and I think you wrote this class originally, I would appreciate if you could 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Jira Link
CALCITE-7719
Changes Proposed
This seems to be a very old bug in
LogicVisitor-- at least 6 years old, if not 15.I had some trouble reverse-engineering what
LogicVisitoris supposed to do, but this does look like a bug because the method I fixed does not look at all like the super-class. I added some more JavaDoc comments to this class, but I am not 100% confident.