Conversation
Author
Riskshould we add a builder pattern if we already have the SortOptions { a: true, b: false }construtor pattern? |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
SortBuilderandSortOptionsfor a to-be-implemented alternative ofsort()dataframe statement.Rationale for this change
want to solve the obscure API problem described in apache/datafusion#20227
What changes are included in this PR?
the change added a new builder for the existing
SortOptionsAre these changes tested?
yes and everything passes
Are there any user-facing changes?
yes.
there are new struct
SortBuilderand its pub methods introduced