GeezerVison

FYI: Tests for aggregate functions are already in place (implemented in GH-27588).

@serhiy-storchaka, is the refactor commit acceptable? Code coverage is preserved.

Ignore my comments about values which cause errors. I covered them in #27654. But please add more test cases for valid values of different types.

I've updated the PR. PTAL, @serhiy-storchaka.

Marked as draft, as I need to resolve some potential issues created by GH-27884.

Resolved: only test arguments passed to UDF's

@serhiy-storchaka, please take a new look.

Go ahead and land it!

I can't; I don't have the commit bit :)

What?! I thought you did. You should. Who's mentoring you?

Thanks @erlend-aasland for the PR, and @gvanrossum for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9, 3.10.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

Sorry, @erlend-aasland and @gvanrossum, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.10 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker 3eb3b4f270757f66c7fb6dcf5afa416ee1582a4b 3.10

Sorry @erlend-aasland and @gvanrossum, I had trouble checking out the 3.9 backport branch.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker 3eb3b4f270757f66c7fb6dcf5afa416ee1582a4b 3.9

I can't; I don't have the commit bit :)

I was surprised when I learned that too, I feel like I've seen your name around CPython a lot :)

What?! I thought you did. You should. Who's mentoring you?

First @corona10, now @pablogsal 🙂

(BTW, I'll fix the backports.)

I was surprised when I learned that too, I feel like I've seen your name around CPython a lot :)

I've been around a year or two, IIRC :)

What?! I thought you did. You should. Who's mentoring you?

We have already offer the promotion a couple of times, we are working on it 😉

GH-31030 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.

Backporting to 3.9 from GH-31030.