removed clippy ignore statment#10111
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
small refactor |
alamb
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2026
alamb
left a comment
alamb
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me -- thank you @Rich-T-kid
| offset = encode_sink_buffer( | ||
| null_buffer, | ||
| buffers, | ||
| &mut meta.buffers, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the next PR could potentially update this to take the whole structure here (rather than &mut meta.buffers)
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about doing that but only meta.buffers gets used. If you like that approach more I can change it right now
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is a fine follow on -- the downside as you say is that it is now less obvious what is being used. The upside is that the logic is more encapsulated (the caller doesn't have to know that only the buffers are being used 🤔 )
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make sense to me.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Introduced this in the latest PR.
alamb
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2026
| sink: &mut IpcBodySink<'_>, | ||
| nodes: &mut Vec<crate::FieldNode>, | ||
| offset: i64, | ||
| num_rows: usize, |
Contributor
|
run benchmark flight |
|
🤖 Arrow criterion benchmark running (GKE) | trigger CPU Details (lscpu)Comparing rich-T-kid/arrow-ipc-cleanup (f6ff6b1) to 301eb26 (merge-base) diff File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Arrow criterion benchmark completed (GKE) | trigger Instance: CPU Details (lscpu)Details
Resource Usagebase (merge-base)
branch
File an issue against this benchmark runner |
Contributor
|
Thank you @Rich-T-kid |
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
3 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?
Resolves this #10044 (comment) from #10044
Rationale for this change
Code in this file is hard to navigate & its unclear what is happening.
What changes are included in this PR?
This PR introduces
IpcMetadataBuilder, a struct that groups the nodes and buffers vecs previously passed separately intowrite_array_data(), and removes the redundant num_rows/null_count parameters by deriving them fromarray_datadirectly. Together these reducewrite_array_data()from 10 arguments to 7, eliminating the #[allow(clippy::too_many_arguments)] suppression, and doc comments are added to clarify the two-channel output model betweenIpcMetadataBuilder(flatbuffer header metadata) andIpcBodySink(raw Arrow data bytes).Are these changes tested?
yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
no