[Variant] Minor code cleanups #8356
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
|
CC @alamb @codephage2020 -- should be a quickie |
mbrobbel
approved these changes
Sep 16, 2025
|
Thanks @scovich |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
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.
Rationale for this change
Small code cleanups that accumulated during other work.
What changes are included in this PR?
Now that
VariantToArrowRowBuilderis an enum instead of a dyn trait, itsfinishmethod can takeselfinstead of&mut self, which simplifies both its semantics and its call sites.Additionally, pass the input length to the row builders so they can reserve capacity accordingly.
Are these changes tested?
Existing unit tests cover this code
Are there any user-facing changes?
No