GH-49561: [C++][FlightRPC][ODBC] Use SQLWCHAR array for wide string literals in test suite#49562
Merged
lidavidm merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom Mar 24, 2026
Merged
Conversation
|
|
github-actions
bot
added
Component: C++
Component: FlightRPC
CI: Extra: C++
justing-bq
changed the title
|
|
Contributor
Author
lidavidm
approved these changes
Mar 24, 2026
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting merge
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
We want to use a SQLWCHAR array for wide string literal inside our test suite instead of a SQLWCHAR vector.
What changes are included in this PR?
SQLWCHAR vector used for wide string literals are replaced with a SQLWCHAR array instead.
Columns tests were refactored to perform assertions over std::string equality rather than wide string equality.
Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
No