starrocks
starrocks copied to clipboard
[Feature] concat_ws supports array type parameters
Why I'm doing:
When I use hive, the second parameter of concat_ws can be of array type. After migrating to starrocks, it needs to be changed to array_join, and the order of parameters also needs to be changed, which makes migration difficult.
What I'm doing:
A new concat_ws function that supports array input parameters is added in be, and the code logic of array_join is used
Fixes #issue
What type of PR is this:
- [ ] BugFix
- [x] Feature
- [ ] Enhancement
- [ ] Refactor
- [ ] UT
- [ ] Doc
- [ ] Tool
Does this PR entail a change in behavior?
- [x] Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
- [ ] No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.
If yes, please specify the type of change:
- [x] Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
- [ ] Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
- [ ] Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
- [ ] Feature removed
- [ ] Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.
Checklist:
- [x] I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
- [x] This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
- [x] I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
- [ ] This is a backport pr
Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:
- [ ] I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
- [ ] 3.2
- [ ] 3.1
- [ ] 3.0
- [ ] 2.5
Quality Gate passed
Kudos, no new issues were introduced!
0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code
[FE Incremental Coverage Report]
:white_check_mark: pass : 0 / 0 (0%)
[BE Incremental Coverage Report]
:x: fail : 0 / 6 (00.00%)
file detail
path | covered_line | new_line | coverage | not_covered_line_detail | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
:large_blue_circle: | be/src/exprs/array_functions.h | 0 | 6 | 00.00% | [75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80] |
@Seaven @mofeiatwork @packy92 Could you please review it again?