[SPARK-52985][PS] Raise TypeError for pandas numpy operand in comparison operators #51670
+20
−0
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
xinrong-meng
changed the title
xinrong-meng
changed the title
xinrong-meng
changed the title
|
@ueshin @HyukjinKwon @zhengruifeng may I get a review please? |
zhengruifeng
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2025
|
Merged to master thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Raise TypeError for pandas numpy operand in comparison operators, which otherwise silently triggers Spark errors or unexpected behavior.
We can support thos by converting them to the corresponding pandas on Spark objects with proper testing as a follow-up.
Why are the changes needed?
Raising a clear TypeError early helps users quickly understand that such types are unsupported, rather than encountering obscure Spark errors later.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Better error messages.
Previous behavior please see #51370 (comment).
How was this patch tested?
Unit tests
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No