Repository navigation
Move code in user_defined_plan.rs to the extending-operators doc #15774
Description
From the intention: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/main/datafusion/core/tests/user_defined/user_defined_plan.rs#L18-L24, I think it's better to put the code in examples.
Also, the code isn't solid, and its tests are fragile, such as #15744 (comment).
cc @alamb
Activity
alamb commentedon Apr 19, 2025
I agree -- better still would be to put the content into https://datafusion.apache.org/library-user-guide/extending-operators.html
[-]Move code in `user_defined_plan.rs` to example[/-][+]Move code in `user_defined_plan.rs` to the `extending-operators` doc[/+]Adez017 commentedon Apr 19, 2025
HI @xudong963 , i want to work on this , but could you clarify what exactly we need to do ?
xudong963 commentedon Apr 21, 2025
@Adez017 Hi, the file contains an example about how to define an extending operator, what we need to do is to move the case to the https://datafusion.apache.org/library-user-guide/extending-operators.html doc. You can refer the custom table provider doc format: https://datafusion.apache.org/library-user-guide/custom-table-providers.html
krishna4040 commentedon Jul 15, 2025
take
krishna4040 commentedon Jul 15, 2025
@xudong963 I see not activity on this issue or either of the PR opened. Is this issue available, can i work on this?
xudong963 commentedon Jul 19, 2025
Yes, it's available, thanks!
alamb commentedon Jul 21, 2025
Note there is a PR here
I think this ticket is largely a documentation exercise in writing docs and will be tough for a newcomer to complete. I hope to help get it over the line later today
docs: Move TopK example to extending-operators documentation (Fixes a…
docs: Move TopK example to extending-operators documentation (Fixes a…
codewarnab commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Hi @alamb, I’m interested in working on this. I read the feedback on #15832, #18372, and #22871, and the TopK example still appears to be in the test file rather than the guide.
Is this still something the project would like to have? If so, I’d be happy to look at updating the walkthrough and preserving the invariant tests.
alamb commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Thanks @codewarnab . Yes I think we would be interested in it
However, please please please optimize for readability -- do it in small PRs that are easy / quick to review; make sure it is clear and concise (not AI super-hard-to-understand prose)
Thank you
codewarnab commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Got it . I'll keep the diff readable and minimal and will split in smaller prs if the diff is large .
codewarnab commentedon Nov 2, 2026
take
codewarnab commentedon Nov 2, 2026
I opened #27011 for this issue. Please let me know if any changes are needed.
In a previous PR, you suggested moving the invariant tests to unit tests. Would you still like me to do that? If so, should I do it in #27011 or in a follow-up PR?