qrilka opened a new pull request, #6711: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/6711
Adds DisplayAs trait for structs which could show more details when formatted in the verbose mode Resolves https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/6383 # Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123. --> Closes #6383. <!-- # Rationale for this change --> <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> # What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Notes about the implementation: * new trait `physical_plan::display::DisplayAs` was created similar to `physical_plan::ExecutionPlan::fmt_as` (but this method is left in its current trait) * `verbose` mode wasn't actually used in the code and to make it work I added `verbose` as an argument of `physical_plan::display::DisplayableExecutionPlan::indent` and moved `to_stringified` into that trait and also added `verbose` into this method * as a result new we have `fmt_as` in two different traits and also 2 slightly different `to_stringified` in two traits as well but I couldn't find a good way around that * I've tested the implementation manually as it's described in https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/6383#issuecomment-1554300787 but I wonder if there is some way to add something similar to the code base. For example my first implementation failed this manual test with unit tests succeding (just because `verbose` wasn't actually used) # Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> New unit tests were added. Plus manual test from the ticket also passes # Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> The docs don't have much details about `EXPLAIN` so I'm not sure that we need to add this minor detail. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
