-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 328
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 offset tests #12191
Refactor offset tests #12191
Conversation
26547f3
to
70c76b6
Compare
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 think it's a good idea to introduce ignore_order
argument to Table equality check.
But if we are introducing it, we need to make sure it works for various cases (as noted in the comments, sorting by first column is not sufficient). I'd also suggest adding the "(sorted)" suffix if we are indeed now displaying sorted tables in Actual/Expected OR reverting to displaying the original tables there and noting that the comparison was done ignoring ordering.
I think we can make test failure messages nicer if we borrow from the should_equal_ignoring_order
method:
The collection X did not contain E.
The collection contained an element E that was not expected.
Could become:
The table did not contain expected row R
/The table contained an unexpected row R
and then the Actual/Expected tables can be displayed.
But I think current level of reporting is also good enough - let's just make it precise and either say we are displaying sorted tables or display original ones.
Pull Request Description
Important Notes
Checklist
Please ensure that the following checklist has been satisfied before submitting the PR:
Scala,
Java,
TypeScript,
and
Rust
style guides. In case you are using a language not listed above, follow the Rust style guide.
or the Snowflake database integration, a run of the Extra Tests has been scheduled.