[SPARK-47681][FOLLOWUP] Fix schema_of_variant(decimal). #46549
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
The PR #46338 found
schema_of_variantsometimes could not correctly handle variant decimals and had a fix. However, I found that the fix is incomplete andschema_of_variantcan still fail on some inputs. The reason is thatVariantUtil.getDecimalcallsstripTrailingZeros. For an input decimal10.00, the resulting scale is -1 and the unscaled value is 1. However, negative decimal scale is not allowed by Spark. The correct approach is to use theBigDecimalto construct aDecimaland read its precision and scale, as what we did inVariantGet.This PR also includes a minor change for
VariantGet, where a duplicated expression is computed twice.Why are the changes needed?
They are bug fixes and are required to process decimals correctly.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
More unit tests. Some of them would fail without the change in this PR (e.g.,
check("10.00", "DECIMAL(2,0)")). Others wouldn't fail, but can still enhance test coverage.Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.