-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.9k
[SPARK-6765] Fix test code style for SQL #5412
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
04ec7ac
7e0db5e
ef4ec48
f2f4348
0b03fbb
82d0944
8c7250a
9098a31
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ class QueryTest extends PlanTest { | |
| checkAnswer(df, Seq(expectedAnswer)) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| def sqlTest(sqlString: String, expectedAnswer: Seq[Row])(implicit sqlContext: SQLContext): Unit = { | ||
| def sqlTest(sqlString: String, expectedAnswer: Seq[Row])(implicit sqlContext: SQLContext) { | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why removing return type of this one?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. it was too long - either wrap it, or just remove :Unit
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I believe this form of method is going to be deprecated. |
||
| test(sqlString) { | ||
| checkAnswer(sqlContext.sql(sqlString), expectedAnswer) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -30,4 +30,4 @@ class DebuggingSuite extends FunSuite { | |
| test("DataFrame.typeCheck()") { | ||
| testData.typeCheck() | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we also want public fields have explicit type too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes - but there is no rule for it yet.