You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to github@arrow.apache.org by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2026/04/18 20:46:11 UTC
[PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
thisisnic opened a new pull request, #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795
### Rationale for this change
We removed a job as it was too old and didn't reflect CRAN and now we added it in as we have one which does reflect CRAN's environments
### What changes are included in this PR?
Add GCC 15 job
### Are these changes tested?
On CI, sure
### Are there any user-facing changes?
Nah
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic merged PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3118325516
##########
r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R:
##########
@@ -287,11 +287,21 @@ test_that("filter environment scope", {
})
test_that("Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly", {
+ # expect_warning(., NA) because the usual behavior when it hits a filter
+ # that it can't evaluate is to raise a warning, collect() to R, and retry
+ # the filter. But we want this to error the first time because it's
+ # a user error, not solvable by retrying in R
+ expect_warning(
+ expect_error(
+ tbl |> record_batch() |> filter(not_a_col == 42) |> collect(),
+ class = "validation_error"
+ ),
+ NA
+ )
+})
Review Comment:
Or should I just swap back in ` "object 'not_a_col' not found"` in the English test instead of testing the error class actually? I see I left in an extra change there...
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "conbench-apache-arrow[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
conbench-apache-arrow[bot] commented on PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#issuecomment-4456101261
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 3 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit f69ccb08d62bf0f1e8b07db3b9d561c234c88abb.
There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉
The [full Conbench report](https://github.com/apache/arrow/runs/76107234145) has more details.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3123547383
##########
r/tests/testthat/helper-arrow.R:
##########
@@ -35,19 +35,25 @@ options(arrow.pull_as_vector = FALSE)
with_language <- function(lang, expr) {
Review Comment:
Yeah, sort of makes sense.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "jonkeane (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
jonkeane commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3119476929
##########
r/tests/testthat/helper-arrow.R:
##########
@@ -35,19 +35,25 @@ options(arrow.pull_as_vector = FALSE)
with_language <- function(lang, expr) {
Review Comment:
Does https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/37811#issuecomment-1767432064 have any info about why we have a separate one?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3119328113
##########
r/tests/testthat/helper-arrow.R:
##########
@@ -35,19 +35,25 @@ options(arrow.pull_as_vector = FALSE)
with_language <- function(lang, expr) {
Review Comment:
Wait, why do we have our own `with_language()` here? I might try out the withr one before we merge this...
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3118229333
##########
r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R:
##########
@@ -287,11 +287,21 @@ test_that("filter environment scope", {
})
test_that("Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly", {
+ # expect_warning(., NA) because the usual behavior when it hits a filter
+ # that it can't evaluate is to raise a warning, collect() to R, and retry
+ # the filter. But we want this to error the first time because it's
+ # a user error, not solvable by retrying in R
+ expect_warning(
+ expect_error(
+ tbl |> record_batch() |> filter(not_a_col == 42) |> collect(),
+ class = "validation_error"
+ ),
+ NA
+ )
+})
Review Comment:
When you say side-stepping, how do you mean? I didn't want to lose the language-specific stuff, but it was erroring when both were in the same test, and so I split it out into two separate tests.
There's some weird stuff going on which I dug into with Claude (which couldn't figure it out properly), around the language not getting reset properly when it's within the same test block, even with the use of `with_language()`. It probably warrants a ticket opening on `withr` if I can make a decent reprex, but it feels like there's a weird intersection between runner environment and code, so I might just have to point at this PR as I don't have that much time to spend on it.
This most recent commit was to see if we get a difference between separate expectations in the same test, versus separate tests, which looks like it passes, so the difference is some underlying mechanism around the test setup rather than our code not outputting locale-specific errors properly - does that make sense, or is there some other nuance I'm missing here?
(Side-note: am I being paranoid, or does "is there some other nuance I'm missing here?" sound really passive-aggressive? 😬 I trust you know I don't mean it like that! 😆 )
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "jonkeane (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
jonkeane commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3117863992
##########
r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R:
##########
@@ -287,11 +287,21 @@ test_that("filter environment scope", {
})
test_that("Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly", {
+ # expect_warning(., NA) because the usual behavior when it hits a filter
+ # that it can't evaluate is to raise a warning, collect() to R, and retry
+ # the filter. But we want this to error the first time because it's
+ # a user error, not solvable by retrying in R
+ expect_warning(
+ expect_error(
+ tbl |> record_batch() |> filter(not_a_col == 42) |> collect(),
+ class = "validation_error"
+ ),
+ NA
+ )
+})
Review Comment:
This is sidestepping the language issue entirely — is that ok? Do we have other tests that confirm that we aren't messing up the translations here?
FWIW: this CI change alone shouldn't break this, so I'm not super worried about this being some specific GCC15+LTO (runner) thing, but am slightly curious that we are dropping the `en` block below for this one?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "jonkeane (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
jonkeane commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3118370217
##########
r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R:
##########
@@ -287,11 +287,21 @@ test_that("filter environment scope", {
})
test_that("Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly", {
+ # expect_warning(., NA) because the usual behavior when it hits a filter
+ # that it can't evaluate is to raise a warning, collect() to R, and retry
+ # the filter. But we want this to error the first time because it's
+ # a user error, not solvable by retrying in R
+ expect_warning(
+ expect_error(
+ tbl |> record_batch() |> filter(not_a_col == 42) |> collect(),
+ class = "validation_error"
+ ),
+ NA
+ )
+})
Review Comment:
> Or should I just swap back in "object 'not_a_col' not found" in the English test instead of testing the error class actually? I see I left in an extra change there...
Yeah this is what I was (cryptically???) worried about 😂
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "conbench-apache-arrow[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
conbench-apache-arrow[bot] commented on PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#issuecomment-4382291491
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 0 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit f69ccb08d62bf0f1e8b07db3b9d561c234c88abb.
None of the specified runs were found on the Conbench server.
The [full Conbench report](https://github.com/apache/arrow/runs/74487224210) has more details.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#issuecomment-4381176452
Any more changes before merging @jonkeane?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#issuecomment-4276968096
There were changes in #37811 that never got merged as it got complex, which I'll add in here so hopefully those should help
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "jonkeane (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
jonkeane commented on PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#issuecomment-4276031675
The error
```
══ Failed tests ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
── Error ('test-dplyr-filter.R:295:5'): Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly ──
<validation_error/rlang_error/error/condition>
Error in `not_a_col == 42`: object 'not_a_col' not found
Backtrace:
...
```
is coming from:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/36c8c9a24aec70fb41441c6a1a2a28b777d351e3/r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R#L295-L302
Which makes it seem like there's something up with translations / locale not being quite right in the runner / our setup
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "github-actions[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#issuecomment-4274536321
:warning: GitHub issue #49738 **has been automatically assigned in GitHub** to PR creator.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "conbench-apache-arrow[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
conbench-apache-arrow[bot] commented on PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#issuecomment-4456064687
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 3 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit f69ccb08d62bf0f1e8b07db3b9d561c234c88abb.
There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉
The [full Conbench report](https://github.com/apache/arrow/runs/76106534799) has more details.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3118229333
##########
r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R:
##########
@@ -287,11 +287,21 @@ test_that("filter environment scope", {
})
test_that("Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly", {
+ # expect_warning(., NA) because the usual behavior when it hits a filter
+ # that it can't evaluate is to raise a warning, collect() to R, and retry
+ # the filter. But we want this to error the first time because it's
+ # a user error, not solvable by retrying in R
+ expect_warning(
+ expect_error(
+ tbl |> record_batch() |> filter(not_a_col == 42) |> collect(),
+ class = "validation_error"
+ ),
+ NA
+ )
+})
Review Comment:
When you say side-stepping, how do you mean? I didn't want to lose the language-specific stuff, but it was erroring when both were in the same test, and so I split it out into two separate tests.
There's some weird stuff going on which I dug into with Claude (which couldn't figure it out properly), around the language not getting reset properly when it's within the same test block, even with the use of `with_language()`. It probably warrants a ticket opening on `withr` if I can make a decent reprex, but it feels like there's a weird intersection between runner environment and code, so I might just have to point at this PR as I don't have that much time to spend on it.
This most recent commit was to see if we get a difference between separate expectations in the same test, versus separate tests, which looks like it passes, so the difference is some underlying mechanism around the test setup rather than our code not outputting locale-specific errors properly - does that make sense, or is there some other nuance I'm missing here?
(Side-note: am I being paranoid, or does "is there some other nuance I'm missing here?" sound really passive-aggressive? 😬 I trust you know I don't mean it like that, like, I really am unsure whether I have the full picture! 😆 )
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3118325516
##########
r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R:
##########
@@ -287,11 +287,21 @@ test_that("filter environment scope", {
})
test_that("Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly", {
+ # expect_warning(., NA) because the usual behavior when it hits a filter
+ # that it can't evaluate is to raise a warning, collect() to R, and retry
+ # the filter. But we want this to error the first time because it's
+ # a user error, not solvable by retrying in R
+ expect_warning(
+ expect_error(
+ tbl |> record_batch() |> filter(not_a_col == 42) |> collect(),
+ class = "validation_error"
+ ),
+ NA
+ )
+})
Review Comment:
Or should I just swap back in ` "object 'not_a_col' not found"` instead of testing the error class actually? I see I left in an extra change there...
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [PR] GH-49738: [R][CI] Re-enable GCC+LTO job once rhub has a GCC 15 image [arrow]
Posted by "thisisnic (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
thisisnic commented on code in PR #49795:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49795#discussion_r3118932863
##########
r/tests/testthat/test-dplyr-filter.R:
##########
@@ -287,11 +287,21 @@ test_that("filter environment scope", {
})
test_that("Filtering on a column that doesn't exist errors correctly", {
+ # expect_warning(., NA) because the usual behavior when it hits a filter
+ # that it can't evaluate is to raise a warning, collect() to R, and retry
+ # the filter. But we want this to error the first time because it's
+ # a user error, not solvable by retrying in R
+ expect_warning(
+ expect_error(
+ tbl |> record_batch() |> filter(not_a_col == 42) |> collect(),
+ class = "validation_error"
+ ),
+ NA
+ )
+})
Review Comment:
Oh right!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org