Skip to content

Wire up with_new_state with DataSource (#20718)#91

Merged
gabotechs merged 1 commit intobranch-52from
branch-52-with-new-state
Mar 5, 2026
Merged

Wire up with_new_state with DataSource (#20718)#91
gabotechs merged 1 commit intobranch-52from
branch-52-with-new-state

Conversation

@gabotechs
Copy link

Cherry picks apache#20718

@gabotechs gabotechs force-pushed the branch-52-with-new-state branch 2 times, most recently from 5d1c5f5 to 22e30a9 Compare March 5, 2026 14:47
## Which issue does this PR close?

<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
`Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123.
-->

- Closes #.

## 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.
-->

`ExecutionPlan::with_new_state()` allows devs to inject custom
information in their nodes that they can use for tweaking their
`ExecutionPlan` implementations.

This mechanism does not work today if the `ExecutionPlan` is a
`DataSourceExec`, as this one does not implement the `with_new_state()`
method from `ExecutionPlan`.

In order to let people use this also for their own `DataSource`
implementations, this PR adds this method to it.

## 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.
-->

Propagates `with_new_state()` to the `DataSource` trait, so that custom
`DataSourceExec` can also benefit from it.

## 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)?
-->

As it's just method plumbing, my impression is that having a test for it
is overkill.

## Are there any user-facing changes?

Users can now implement their `with_new_state()` also in `DataSource`,
not only in `ExecutionPlan`

<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->

<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->

(cherry picked from commit 46ac990)
@gabotechs gabotechs force-pushed the branch-52-with-new-state branch from 22e30a9 to dfcc85f Compare March 5, 2026 14:55
@gabotechs gabotechs merged commit a939918 into branch-52 Mar 5, 2026
60 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants