You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@arrow.apache.org by gi...@apache.org on 2026/10/14 09:14:58 UTC
(arrow-rs) branch gh-readonly-queue/main/pr-11534-bfdcd26caebd331b928d3530097a97315af1442b created (now 23ac45ed81)
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
github-merge-queue[bot] pushed a change to branch gh-readonly-queue/main/pr-11534-bfdcd26caebd331b928d3530097a97315af1442b
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/arrow-rs.git
at 23ac45ed81 fix: implement `ArrayData::validate_values` for union types (#11534)
This branch includes the following new commits:
new 23ac45ed81 fix: implement `ArrayData::validate_values` for union types (#11534)
The 1 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
repository and will be described in separate emails. The revisions
listed as "add" were already present in the repository and have only
been added to this reference.
(arrow-rs) 01/01: fix: implement `ArrayData::validate_values` for union types (#11534)
Posted by gi...@apache.org.
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
github-merge-queue[bot] pushed a commit to branch gh-readonly-queue/main/pr-11534-bfdcd26caebd331b928d3530097a97315af1442b
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/arrow-rs.git
commit 23ac45ed817d3200e69113473746942f0615ed47
Author: Jeffrey Vo <je...@gmail.com>
AuthorDate: Wed Oct 14 05:54:15 2026 +0000
fix: implement `ArrayData::validate_values` for union types (#11534)
# Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
It is not necessary to raise an issue, but it is encouraged if it is a
non-trivial
enhancement/bug.
If this PR relates to an existing issue, but does not fully resolve it,
please change
the wording below from "Closes #NNN" to "Relates to #NNN" or "Part of
#NNN" to avoid
false closing an issue.
-->
- None
# Rationale for this change
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the
issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes
are proposed
helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for
fixes.
Please try to explain the problem you are trying to solve in terms of
the user-visible
behavior, rather than the implementation.
-->
Ensure our validation APIs actually validate, to ensure downstream
usages can rely on enforced invariants.
# What changes are included in this PR?
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it
is
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->
Implement validation logic for union arrays in
`ArrayData::validate_values`:
- check all type ids are valid (non-negative, associated with a field in
`UnionFields`)
- dense offsets are within bounds for associated child array
# Are these changes tested?
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example,
are they
covered by existing tests, if so identify these tests)?
If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence
such as
benchmark results.
DO NOT simply paste a list of commands ran to verify the code; this is
what our
CI is for and it pollutes the PR. ONLY explain if testing was included
with this
PR, or why it wasn't.
-->
Added new unit tests
# Are there any significant user-facing changes?
<!--
Significant user-facing changes include:
- Breaking public API change
- Significant change to existing functionality (e.g. function returns
something different)
These need to be explicitly called out to ensure we have proper
documentation if
required and to ensure we follow proper semantic versioning.
DO NOT restate the changes of this PR; if a bug was fixed and already
explained
above, we don't need this to be restated as a user-facing change.
-->
No
---
arrow-data/src/data.rs | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 113 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arrow-data/src/data.rs b/arrow-data/src/data.rs
index 82dfefcac0..d58bdcf963 100644
--- a/arrow-data/src/data.rs
+++ b/arrow-data/src/data.rs
@@ -1609,12 +1609,47 @@ impl ArrayData {
let child = self.child_at(0)?;
self.validate_offsets_full::<i64>(child.len)
}
- DataType::Union(_, _) => {
- // Validate Union Array as part of implementing new Union semantics
- // See comments in `ArrayData::validate()`
- // https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/issues/85
- //
- // TODO file follow on ticket for full union validation
+ DataType::Union(fields, mode) => {
+ let mut child_lens: Vec<Option<usize>> = vec![None; 128];
+ for (index, (type_id, _)) in fields.iter().enumerate() {
+ let child = self.child_at(index)?;
+ child_lens[type_id as usize] = Some(child.len());
+ }
+
+ // Type id values must match one of the fields.
+ let type_ids = self.typed_buffer::<i8>(0, self.len)?;
+ for (index, &type_id) in type_ids.iter().enumerate() {
+ if type_id < 0 {
+ return Err(ArrowError::InvalidArgumentError(format!(
+ "Type id values cannot be negative, got {type_id} at index {index}"
+ )));
+ }
+ let type_id = type_id as usize;
+ if child_lens[type_id].is_none() {
+ return Err(ArrowError::InvalidArgumentError(format!(
+ "Type id values must match one of the field type ids, got {type_id} at index {index}"
+ )));
+ }
+ }
+
+ // Check the value offsets are in bounds.
+ if mode == &UnionMode::Dense {
+ let offsets = self.typed_buffer::<i32>(1, self.len)?;
+
+ if type_ids
+ .iter()
+ .zip(offsets.iter())
+ .any(|(&type_id, &offset)| {
+ offset < 0 || offset as usize >= child_lens[type_id as usize].unwrap()
+ })
+ {
+ return Err(ArrowError::InvalidArgumentError(
+ "Offsets must be non-negative and within the length of the child array"
+ .to_string(),
+ ));
+ }
+ }
+
Ok(())
}
DataType::Dictionary(key_type, _value_type) => {
@@ -3963,4 +3998,76 @@ mod tests {
let data_type = DataType::Union(UnionFields::empty(), UnionMode::Dense);
let _ = ArrayData::new_null(&data_type, 1);
}
+
+ #[test]
+ fn test_union_validate_type_ids() {
+ let dt = DataType::Union(
+ UnionFields::try_new(
+ vec![5],
+ vec![Arc::new(Field::new("a", DataType::Int32, true))],
+ )
+ .unwrap(),
+ UnionMode::Sparse,
+ );
+
+ let child = ArrayData::builder(DataType::Int32)
+ .len(2)
+ .add_buffer(make_i32_buffer(2))
+ .build()
+ .unwrap();
+
+ let err = ArrayDataBuilder::new(dt)
+ .len(2)
+ .offset(0)
+ .buffers(vec![vec![5_i8, 2].into()])
+ .child_data(vec![child])
+ .build()
+ .unwrap_err();
+ assert_eq!(
+ err.to_string(),
+ "Invalid argument error: Type id values must match one of the field type ids, got 2 at index 1"
+ );
+ }
+
+ #[test]
+ fn test_union_validate_dense_offsets() {
+ let dt = DataType::Union(
+ UnionFields::try_new(
+ vec![5],
+ vec![Arc::new(Field::new("a", DataType::Int32, true))],
+ )
+ .unwrap(),
+ UnionMode::Dense,
+ );
+
+ let child = ArrayData::builder(DataType::Int32)
+ .len(2)
+ .add_buffer(make_i32_buffer(2))
+ .build()
+ .unwrap();
+
+ let err = ArrayDataBuilder::new(dt.clone())
+ .len(2)
+ // 2nd offset '10' is out of bounds
+ .buffers(vec![vec![5_i8, 5].into(), vec![0_i32, 10].into()])
+ .child_data(vec![child.clone()])
+ .build()
+ .unwrap_err();
+ assert_eq!(
+ err.to_string(),
+ "Invalid argument error: Offsets must be non-negative and within the length of the child array"
+ );
+
+ let err = ArrayDataBuilder::new(dt)
+ .len(2)
+ // 2nd offset is negative
+ .buffers(vec![vec![5_i8, 5].into(), vec![0_i32, -1].into()])
+ .child_data(vec![child])
+ .build()
+ .unwrap_err();
+ assert_eq!(
+ err.to_string(),
+ "Invalid argument error: Offsets must be non-negative and within the length of the child array"
+ );
+ }
}