GH-46791: [C++] Add `Status::OrElse`

[pitrou]

Rationale for this change

In https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/46711#discussion_r2139246309 it was mentioned that the macro RETURN_NOT_OK_ELSE is confusing and can easily be misunderstood. We would like a better way to conditionally chain error-handling code if a Status does not indicate success.

What changes are included in this PR?

1. Add a global ToArrowStatus function to allow registering third-party conversions to Status
2. Add a Status::OrElse method that calls a functor on error
3. Remove the RETURN_NOT_OK_ELSE macro

Are these changes tested?

Yes.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No, the RETURN_NOT_OK_ELSE was not supposed to be called by third-party code as it's not prefixed with ARROW_.

• GitHub Issue: #46791

[github-actions[bot]]

:warning: GitHub issue #46791 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

[pitrou]

@zanmato1984 @bkietz @paleolimbot What do you think?

[pitrou]

Ah, clang is being picky.

/Users/runner/work/arrow/arrow/cpp/src/arrow/status.h:363:16: error: cannot pass object of non-trivial type 'arrow::Status' through variadic method; call will abort at runtime [-Wnon-pod-varargs]
      on_error(*this);
               ^
/Users/runner/work/arrow/arrow/cpp/src/parquet/arrow/writer.cc:392:31: note: in instantiation of function template specialization 'arrow::Status::OrElse<(lambda at /Users/runner/work/arrow/arrow/cpp/src/parquet/arrow/writer.cc:391:7)>' requested here
          WriteRowGroup(0, 0).OrElse([&](...) { PARQUET_IGNORE_NOT_OK(Close()); }));
                              ^

[pitrou]

The behaviour seems to line up exactly with Rust's .or_else()

You can guess it's intended :)

[pitrou]

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

[github-actions[bot]]

Revision: 7a16cd01469da210e59984180231501683a76910

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-500c512008

Task	Status
example-cpp-minimal-build-static
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependency
example-cpp-tutorial
test-build-cpp-fuzz
test-conda-cpp
test-conda-cpp-valgrind
test-cuda-cpp-ubuntu-22.04-cuda-11.7.1
test-debian-12-cpp-amd64
test-debian-12-cpp-i386
test-fedora-39-cpp
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-bundled
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-emscripten
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threading
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-bundled-offline
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-gcc-13-bundled
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-gcc-14
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-minimal-with-formats
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-thread-sanitizer

[pitrou]

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

[github-actions[bot]]

Revision: 65723c88fbc84c38cbfbde95a029c97209234a90

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-dcfad22df7

Task	Status
example-cpp-minimal-build-static
example-cpp-minimal-build-static-system-dependency
example-cpp-tutorial
test-build-cpp-fuzz
test-conda-cpp
test-conda-cpp-valgrind
test-cuda-cpp-ubuntu-22.04-cuda-11.7.1
test-debian-12-cpp-amd64
test-debian-12-cpp-i386
test-fedora-39-cpp
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-bundled
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-emscripten
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threading
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-bundled-offline
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-gcc-13-bundled
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-gcc-14
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-minimal-with-formats
test-ubuntu-24.04-cpp-thread-sanitizer

[pitrou]

@zanmato1984 @paleolimbot @bkietz I've tried to address all your comments and suggestions, can you take a look again?

[conbench-apache-arrow[bot]]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 3 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 0140089a7fab24a1e886a86b659047cf51471e6c.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details.