We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Describe the bug The formatting of floats as printed by pretty_print_batches and the CSV Writer is inconsistent
pretty_print_batches
To Reproduce
fn main() { let arr = Float64Array::from(vec![Some(1.0), None, Some(2.0)]); let batch = RecordBatch::try_from_iter(vec![ ("col", Arc::new(arr) as _) ]).unwrap(); println!("Display"); println!("{}", pretty_format_batches(&[batch.clone()]).unwrap()); println!("CSV"); let mut writer = Writer::new(std::io::stdout()); writer.write(&batch).unwrap(); }
Produces the output:
Display +-----+ | col | +-----+ | 1 | | | | 2 | +-----+ CSV col 1.0 "" 2.0
Note how pretty print shows 1 and csv shows 1.0
1
1.0
Expected behavior I expect the displays to be the same (likely by making the csv writer consistent with the pretty printer)
Additional context See other usecase on on apache/datafusion#4876
I think #3483 from @JayjeetAtGithub covers one potential implementation mechanism
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
array_value_to_string
arrow-csv
write_csv
label_issue.py automatically added labels {'arrow'} from #3514
label_issue.py
Sorry, something went wrong.
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Describe the bug
The formatting of floats as printed by
pretty_print_batches
and the CSV Writer is inconsistentTo Reproduce
Produces the output:
Note how pretty print shows
1
and csv shows1.0
Expected behavior
I expect the displays to be the same (likely by making the csv writer consistent with the pretty printer)
Additional context
See other usecase on on apache/datafusion#4876
I think #3483 from @JayjeetAtGithub covers one potential implementation mechanism
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: