fix(avro): correctly set nullability for ListType#709
Merged
zeroshade merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom Mar 13, 2026
Merged
Conversation
zeroshade
approved these changes
Mar 13, 2026
Member
zeroshade
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch! Looks good assuming all the CI pass
Contributor
Author
|
Should pass eventually when the✨align😂 |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Rationale for this change
Nullability of a list field itself is lost when converting from avro to arrow schema; only the nullability of the list members is applied.
What changes are included in this PR?
Use buildArrowField function for listfield to leverage arrow field creation; which applies nullability as expected. Also use buildArrowField for float,double,boolean case for consistency.
Are these changes tested?
Added testcase for a nullable list.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Debatable