Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

refactor: Simplify predicate evaluation by supporting inversion #761

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 22, 2025

Conversation

scovich
Copy link
Collaborator

@scovich scovich commented Mar 21, 2025

What changes are proposed in this pull request?

Somehow, the comparison operators were not implemented using inversion, even both their callers and callees were already inversion-aware. Fix it.

How was this change tested?

Existing unit tests cover this.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 21, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.59259% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.30%. Comparing base (3dcad08) to head (8362615).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
kernel/src/predicates/mod.rs 92.59% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #761      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.35%   84.30%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          81       81              
  Lines       19242    19200      -42     
  Branches    19242    19200      -42     
==========================================
- Hits        16232    16187      -45     
  Misses       2206     2206              
- Partials      804      807       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the breaking-change Change that will require a version bump label Mar 21, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@zachschuermann zachschuermann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@zachschuermann zachschuermann removed the breaking-change Change that will require a version bump label Mar 21, 2025
@zachschuermann
Copy link
Collaborator

I think you just need rebase and the breaking change will be resolved?

@zachschuermann zachschuermann requested a review from roeap March 21, 2025 22:38
Copy link
Collaborator

@roeap roeap left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@scovich scovich merged commit 79b9f24 into delta-io:main Mar 22, 2025
21 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants