Fix trailing whitespace in CROSS JOIN logical plan formatting #19936
Conversation
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
github-actions
bot
added
sql
Trikooo
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2026
Trikooo
left a comment
Trikooo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. This correctly handles the trailing whitespace, and the updated snapshots confirm the expected output.
Jefffrey
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2026
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
While working on #19930 , I noticed a trailing whitespace in the CROSS JOIN logical plan output. This whitespace is inconsistent with the rest of the logical plan formatting.
Rationale for this change
This change removes the unnecessary trailing whitespace in the logical plan output of a CROSS JOIN.
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Yes.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.