fix: avoid mutable listing URL hash keys - #105
Merged
Merged
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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?
Rationale for this change
Rust 1.97 Clippy rejects
HashSet<&ListingTableUrl>becauseListingTableUrlcontains a regex cache with interior mutability. The set is only used to detect duplicate normalized locations, so retaining the full URL object is unnecessary.What changes are included in this PR?
Store borrowed normalized URL strings in the duplicate-detection
HashSet. This preserves the existing behavior while avoiding mutable key types and keeping allocations bounded to the set itself.Are these changes tested?
cargo test --profile=ci -p datafusion --lib datasource::listing_table_factory::tests::test_create_with_duplicate_locationscargo clippy --all-targets --all-features -- -D warningscargo fmt --all -- --checkAre there any user-facing changes?
No. Duplicate external table locations continue to return the existing planning error.