resolve nullable type causes a dynamic call

[yliuuuu]

Relevant Issues

• [Closes/Related To] Issue #XXX

Description

Consider if we have a : StaticType.UnionOf(INT4, NULL)
The query a + a would be routed to a dynamic call, because the buildArgumentPermutations would attempts to match signatures with args INT4, INT4, NULL, INT4, INT4, NULL, NULL, NULL.

See example Plan:

⚬ PartiQLPlan[tag=Plan-36809b3]
   ├──Catalog[name=test, tag=Plan-c9b14412]
   │  └──Symbol[type=union(null, int4), tag=Plan-fdf51022]
   └──Query[tag=Plan-439af0a1]
      └──Rex[type=union(int2, null, int4), tag=Plan-ecb47ef3]
         └──Dynamic[tag=Plan-32394b25]
            ├──Rex[type=union(null, int4), tag=Plan-3b304cd]
            │  └──Global[tag=Plan-b7513a12]
            │     └──Ref[catalog=0, symbol=0, tag=Plan-eaf2e03d]
            ├──Rex[type=union(null, int4), tag=Plan-2be5e6ab]
            │  └──Global[tag=Plan-7faea094]
            │     └──Ref[catalog=0, symbol=0, tag=Plan-664cc400]
            ├──Candidate[tag=Plan-e083537]
            │  └──Fn[signature=PLUS__INT8_INT8__INT8, tag=Plan-440fa4c]
            └──Candidate[tag=Plan-215c0857]
               └──Fn[signature=PLUS__INT32_INT32__INT32, tag=Plan-d4d5c34b]

Other Information

• Updated Unreleased Section in CHANGELOG: [YES/NO]

  • NO. Not released.

• Any backward-incompatible changes? [YES/NO]

  • No. Not released.

• Any new external dependencies? [YES/NO]

  • < If YES, which ones and why? >
  • < In addition, please also mention any other alternatives you've considered and the reason they've been discarded >
    No.

• Do your changes comply with the Contributing Guidelines
  and Code Style Guidelines? [YES/NO]
  Yes.

License Information

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[github-actions]

Conformance comparison report

	Base (bc24c2f)	9a30c6c	+/-
% Passing	92.54%	92.54%	0.00%
✅ Passing	5384	5384	0
❌ Failing	434	434	0
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0

Number passing in both: 5384

Number failing in both: 434

Number passing in Base (bc24c2f) but now fail: 0

Number failing in Base (bc24c2f) but now pass: 0

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (bc24c2f) 72.15% compared to head (b02d8e9) 72.15%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #1366   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     72.15%   72.15%           
  Complexity     2095     2095           
=========================================
  Files           221      221           
  Lines         15984    15984           
  Branches       2896     2896           
=========================================
  Hits          11534    11534           
  Misses         3641     3641           
  Partials        809      809           

Flag	Coverage Δ
CLI	11.86% <ø> (ø)
EXAMPLES	80.28% <ø> (ø)
LANG	80.78% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.