-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
[CALCITE-6587] Support Java 23 and Guava 33.3.0 #3971
Conversation
Error was 'The Develocity server (ge.apache.org) rejected the request due to authentication being required.'
25ce361
to
a5f6189
Compare
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. (I finally recovered my Github account via disabling two-factor verification by Github staff)
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static QueryBuilder analyze(RexNode expression) throws ExpressionNotAnalyzableEx | |||
} | |||
return e != null ? e.builder() : null; | |||
} catch (Throwable e) { | |||
Throwables.propagateIfPossible(e, UnsupportedOperationException.class); | |||
Throwables.throwIfInstanceOf(e, UnsupportedOperationException.class); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
According to the Javadoc, throwIfInstanceOf is not a 1:1 replacement for propagateIfPossible.
The old code would throw other RunTime exceptions directly, while the new one wraps them.
This may be a good thing, but the commit message wording does not suggest behavioural changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wasn't aware that the methods have different behavior. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
However, there is no obligation to document behavioral changes that occur in 'behavior is unspecified' territory.
This block - like pretty much every catch (Throwable)
block - is in that territory, and I didn't think too much about which use cases would be affected because - by definition - there are no documented, tested use cases.
@libenchao, Can you review this? Part of it relates to deprecated methods in Avatica, and [CALCITE-5136].
I'd like to get this change into Calcite 1.38, but the Avatica fixes can wait a few weeks.