GH-35789: [C++] Remove check_overflow from CumulativeSumOptions

[js8544]

Rationale for this change

There are two variants of cumsum, cumulative_sum always wraps around on overflow and cumulative_sum_checked always return Status::Invalid on overflow, regardless of the check_overflow parameter in CumulativeSumOptions.
For example:

CumulativeSumOptions options(/*start=*/0, /*skip_nulls=*/true, /*check_overflow=*/true);
auto res = CallFunction("cumulative_sum", {ArrayFromJSON(int8(), "[127, 1]")}, &options);
std::cout << res->make_array()->ToString() << std::endl;
// prints [127, -128], but user might expect an error returned.

I believe it's more of a ambiguity rather than a bug. The document of cumulative_sum also doesn't mention check_overflow at all, and check_overflow is not exposed to pyarrow. So IMO the best approach to avoid confusion is to remove check_overflow from CumulativeSumOptions.

The only place where check_overflow is used is in the C++ convenience function CumulativeSum defined in api_vector.h, which calls cumulative_sum_checked or cumulative_sum depending on the parameter. It can be replaced by a bool parameter in the C++ convenience function.

What changes are included in this PR?

1. check_overflow is removed from CumulativeSumOptions.
2. Add a bool check_overflow parameter to the C++ convenience function CumulativeSum.

Are these changes tested?

It doesn't affect the current tests.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes, but only the C++ convenience function because check_overflow is not used in the kernel implementation and not exposed to pyarrow anyways.

• Closes: [C++] cumulative_sum ignores CumulativeSumOptions::check_overflow #35789

[github-actions]

• Closes: [C++] cumulative_sum ignores CumulativeSumOptions::check_overflow #35789

[github-actions]

⚠️ GitHub issue #35789 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

[pitrou]

There are two variants of cumsum, cumulative_sum always wraps around on overflow and cumulative_sum always return Status::Invalid on overflow,

This does not seem to make sense to me, is there a typo?

[pitrou]

Regardless, the unused option is misleading, so I agree with removing it.

[js8544]

There are two variants of cumsum, cumulative_sum always wraps around on overflow and cumulative_sum always return Status::Invalid on overflow,

This does not seem to make sense to me, is there a typo?

Sorry! It's a typo indeed. I meant cumulative_sum_checked.

[pitrou]

Thanks for this @js8544 . Let's just wait for CI now.

[js8544]

The CI failure looks weird. I pushed an empty commit to trigger a rerun.

[pitrou]

The CI failure was probably unrelated, but let's wait for it.

[ursabot]

Benchmark runs are scheduled for baseline = e0fd7ef and contender = d20a1d1. d20a1d1 is a master commit associated with this PR. Results will be available as each benchmark for each run completes.
Conbench compare runs links:
[Finished ⬇️0.0% ⬆️0.0%] ec2-t3-xlarge-us-east-2
[Finished ⬇️0.41% ⬆️0.0%] test-mac-arm
[Finished ⬇️5.56% ⬆️0.0%] ursa-i9-9960x
[Finished ⬇️0.63% ⬆️0.06%] ursa-thinkcentre-m75q
Buildkite builds:
[Finished] d20a1d1e ec2-t3-xlarge-us-east-2
[Finished] d20a1d1e test-mac-arm
[Finished] d20a1d1e ursa-i9-9960x
[Finished] d20a1d1e ursa-thinkcentre-m75q
[Finished] e0fd7ef8 ec2-t3-xlarge-us-east-2
[Finished] e0fd7ef8 test-mac-arm
[Finished] e0fd7ef8 ursa-i9-9960x
[Finished] e0fd7ef8 ursa-thinkcentre-m75q
Supported benchmarks:
ec2-t3-xlarge-us-east-2: Supported benchmark langs: Python, R. Runs only benchmarks with cloud = True
test-mac-arm: Supported benchmark langs: C++, Python, R
ursa-i9-9960x: Supported benchmark langs: Python, R, JavaScript
ursa-thinkcentre-m75q: Supported benchmark langs: C++, Java

[ursabot]

['Python', 'R'] benchmarks have high level of regressions.
ursa-i9-9960x