In
2de226220b
I added a new `IntoArrow` trait for adding data into a table.
Unfortunately, it seems my approach for implementing the trait for
"things that are already record batch readers" was flawed. This PR
corrects that flaw and, conveniently, removes the need to box readers at
all (though it is ok if you do).
In order to add support for `add` we needed to migrate the rust `Table`
trait to a `Table` struct and `TableInternal` trait (similar to the way
the connection is designed).
While doing this we also cleaned up some inconsistencies between the
SDKs:
* Python and Node are garbage collected languages and it can be
difficult to trigger something to be freed. The convention for these
languages is to have some kind of close method. I added a close method
to both the table and connection which will drop the underlying rust
object.
* We made significant improvements to table creation in
cc5f2136a6
for the `node` SDK. I copied these changes to the `nodejs` SDK.
* The nodejs tables were using fs to create tmp directories and these
were not getting cleaned up. This is mostly harmless but annoying and so
I changed it up a bit to ensure we cleanup tmp directories.
* ~~countRows in the node SDK was returning `bigint`. I changed it to
return `number`~~ (this actually happened in a previous PR)
* Tables and connections now implement `std::fmt::Display` which is
hooked into python's `__repr__`. Node has no concept of a regular "to
string" function and so I added a `display` method.
* Python method signatures are changing so that optional parameters are
always `Optional[foo] = None` instead of something like `foo = False`.
This is because we want those defaults to be in rust whenever possible
(though we still need to mention the default in documentation).
* I changed the python `AsyncConnection/AsyncTable` classes from
abstract classes with a single implementation to just classes because we
no longer have the remote implementation in python.
Note: this does NOT add the `add` function to the remote table. This PR
was already large enough, and the remote implementation is unique
enough, that I am going to do all the remote stuff at a later date (we
should have the structure in place and correct so there shouldn't be any
refactor concerns)
---------
Co-authored-by: Will Jones <willjones127@gmail.com>
