GH-51780: [C++][IPC] Remove the mislabeled null check on schema fields in GetSchema - #51811
Open
CaptainAni187 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
CaptainAni187 wants to merge 1 commit into
CaptainAni187 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
… fields in GetSchema
|
|
CaptainAni187
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 6, 2026 01:14
|
|
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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
In
GetSchema, the loop over the schema's fields checked eachFieldfor null with the label"DictionaryEncoding.indexType". That label belongs to a different check, so if this one ever failed, the error would point at the wrong field. As theXXXcomment next to it said, the check also can't fail: for a vector of tables,fields()->Get(i)returns the element's address plus its stored offset, never null.Schema.fieldsitself is already checked for null just above.What changes are included in this PR?
The check and its comment are removed, which is the first option in the issue. Child fields in
FieldFromFlatbufferare already read throughchildren->Get(i)without a null check, so top-level fields now match.Are these changes tested?
No new test, since the removed check couldn't fail. The
arrow-ipc-*tests pass locally.Are there any user-facing changes?
No.
Was AI used for this PR?
In accordance to the AI generation guidelines, please disclose below whether and how AI was used in this PR.
PR code and description written by:
Reviewed before submission by: