Skip to content

Fix semantic conflict in vortex-file tests - #10731

Merged
mhk197 merged 1 commit into
developfrom
mk/fix-vortex-file-list-ctx
Oct 23, 2026
Merged

mhk197 merged 1 commit into
developfrom
mk/fix-vortex-file-list-ctx

Conversation

@mhk197

@mhk197 mhk197 commented Oct 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Develop doesn't compile vortex-file's tests. #10533 added nested_empty_list_roundtrip, which calls ListArray::try_new with three arguments, but #10594 had already added a fourth, the execution context. Both passed CI on their own. Since #10533 merged, the Rust build, lint and test jobs fail on develop and on every PR.

Changes

  • nested_empty_list_roundtrip creates an execution context and passes it to both ListArray::try_new calls, as nested_list_of_list_roundtrip just above it already does.

Testing

  • cargo nextest run -p vortex-file -E 'test(/nested_empty_list_roundtrip|nested_list_of_list_roundtrip/)' (5 passed)
  • cargo clippy -p vortex-file --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings
  • cargo +nightly-2026-09-10 fmt -p vortex-file --check

…roundtrip

Signed-off-by: Matt Katz <mhkatz97@gmail.com>
@mhk197 mhk197 added the changelog/skip Do not list PR in the changelog label Oct 23, 2026
@mhk197
mhk197 enabled auto-merge (squash) October 23, 2026 14:33
@mhk197
mhk197 merged commit 6f7091d into develop Oct 23, 2026
115 of 118 checks passed
@mhk197
mhk197 deleted the mk/fix-vortex-file-list-ctx branch October 23, 2026 14:40
@codspeed

codspeed Bot commented Oct 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 1.74%

3 warnings, 1 note

⚠️ Walltime results may be unreliable

Some benchmarks used the Walltime instrument outside CodSpeed Macro Runners, which can make the results inconsistent.

Learn more about Macro Runners

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 17 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ Base and head ran on different runner types

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runner types, so the changes might not come from the code. Run base and head on the same runner type, or use CodSpeed Macro Runners for more stable results.

Learn more about Macro Runners

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

ℹ️ 40 benchmarks have no flamegraph

The flamegraph wasn't generated: the symbols of the profiling trace could not be resolved, because no information about the language frames was collected.

See affected benchmarks

⚡ 3 improved benchmarks
❌ 5 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2400 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 12 skipped benchmarks1

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

Mode Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
❌ Walltime starts_with_avx512[8, VarBin] 39.7 µs 46.2 µs -14.19%
❌ CPU Simulation test_scan_filter_to_arrow_array[int_float] 3.5 ms 4.1 ms -13.48%
❌ CPU Simulation test_repeated_scan_filter[int_float] 3.4 ms 3.9 ms -10.97%
❌ CPU Simulation test_repeated_scan_filter[int] 2.4 ms 2.7 ms -10.34%
❌ CPU Simulation test_scan_filter_to_arrow_array[int] 2.5 ms 2.8 ms -10.05%
⚡ CPU Simulation take[routing/alternating_chunks/primitive/nonnull/chunks=32/indices=1000] 247.1 µs 196.7 µs +25.6%
⚡ Walltime random_rotating_avx512[(0.9, 0.9, "self_90pct_mask_90pct")] 9.6 µs 8.2 µs +16.26%
⚡ Walltime random_rotating_avx512[(0.5, 0.5, "self_50pct_mask_50pct")] 9.2 µs 8.3 µs +11.68%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.


Comparing mk/fix-vortex-file-list-ctx (a379c73) with develop (6f7091d)2

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 12 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

  2. No successful run was found on develop (a169338) during the generation of this report, so 6f7091d was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

changelog/skip Do not list PR in the changelog

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants