barrkel commented on PR #3693: URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/3693#issuecomment-1954181797
> 1. CI should be successful. Ack. > 2. Commit message should start with `[CALCITE-6254]` Done. I think the CI failure was because of a `.` at the end of the commit message. > 3. Maybe we need validate foo table and foo function(Discussion in JIRA). I don't think that makes sense. The identifier scopes for tables and functions are still disjoint, so the existing validation logic in `SqlValidatorImpl` still applies. The updated grammar produces the same SQL AST as `TABLE(foo())`. This is why there are no changes outside the grammar and its test. If the goal is upgraded to being able to handle ambiguous identifiers - e.g. supporting nullary table functions - then things get much harder, both for design and implementation. As I mentioned on the JIRA ticket I think that's a dubious cost/benefit tradeoff. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@calcite.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
