-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.7k
Change how we handle unions of missings and other types in unitary functions #53616
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
0f4bdff to
1e90fd3
Compare
1e90fd3 to
5d279b1
Compare
5d279b1 to
843357d
Compare
|
is this ready to merge? |
|
It seems the CI failures are legit |
|
Aren't the |
Yes, it looks like the CI failures are related to the changes in this PR. @oxinabox Are you still interested in working on this? If not, @oscardssmith would you be interested in taking over this PR? I'm asking because I see the |
|
this is still a change we should have. |
b926738 to
7575ff2
Compare
|
CI failures seem related to the contents of this PR. @oscardssmith can I assign this PR for you to take over as the new PR "author"? And to take a look at the failing tests? |
|
will investigate. |
|
Some more test failures: |
whoops, I can pretend to know the difference between a type an value
|
CI failure looks unrelated, just waiting for the Windows builders to actually get around to running |
Follow up to #53602 (comment)
all the related
need_to_handle_undef_sparamshould now pass if this is right