Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: use collation aware typing for UNION #15122

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 7, 2024

Conversation

systay
Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay commented Feb 2, 2024

Description

A bug was recently solved (#15069) that fixes the type copying to UNION columns. We want to backport this fix, so it didn't contain support for collations. In earlier releases we don't have this capability.

In main we now have a way to aggregate the types including the collation of the columns (#15085), so here is the update that uses this new way of aggregating types.

Related Issue(s)

Original issue: #15020

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Feb 2, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Feb 2, 2024
@systay systay added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Query Serving and removed NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Feb 2, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Feb 2, 2024
@systay systay removed the NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request label Feb 2, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 138 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (eddb39e) 47.29% compared to head (742b254) 70.64%.
Report is 108 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
go/vt/mysqlctl/builtinbackupengine.go 12.90% 54 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/mysqlctl/backupengine.go 0.00% 20 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/mysqlctl/xtrabackupengine.go 0.00% 15 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/schemadiff/column.go 70.83% 7 Missing ⚠️
go/mysql/conn.go 53.84% 6 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/mysqlctl/backup.go 37.50% 5 Missing ⚠️
go/mysql/capabilities/capability.go 91.48% 4 Missing ⚠️
go/mysql/query.go 77.77% 4 Missing ⚠️
go/mysql/datetime/parse.go 93.75% 3 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/mysqlctl/schema.go 72.72% 3 Missing ⚠️
... and 11 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15122       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   47.29%   70.64%   +23.34%     
===========================================
  Files        1137     1376      +239     
  Lines      238684   182454    -56230     
===========================================
+ Hits       112895   128886    +15991     
+ Misses     117168    53568    -63600     
+ Partials     8621        0     -8621     

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

@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Contributor

Missing tests? ;)

@wangweicugw
Copy link
Contributor

👍🏻

@systay systay force-pushed the union-merging-types branch from b6c8816 to 8af166c Compare February 5, 2024 10:43
@systay systay requested a review from mattlord as a code owner February 5, 2024 10:43
Copy link
Collaborator

@vmg vmg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Paired with Andres on this

@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Contributor

Hopefully this can make it before the code freeze. 🚀

@systay systay force-pushed the union-merging-types branch 2 times, most recently from 935591c to 1d96548 Compare February 5, 2024 12:40
@systay
Copy link
Collaborator Author

systay commented Feb 5, 2024

I've moved the bug fixing to a different PR: #15134. We want to backport the bug fixes, but not this new type aggregating.

@systay systay force-pushed the union-merging-types branch from 1d96548 to 61f4859 Compare February 5, 2024 12:59
@systay systay force-pushed the union-merging-types branch from 61f4859 to 032def4 Compare February 6, 2024 06:35
@systay systay force-pushed the union-merging-types branch from 032def4 to 742b254 Compare February 6, 2024 12:37
@frouioui frouioui modified the milestones: v19.0.0, v20.0.0 Feb 6, 2024
Copy link
Member

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

❤️ it

@vmg vmg merged commit f31f064 into vitessio:main Feb 7, 2024
102 checks passed
@vmg vmg deleted the union-merging-types branch February 7, 2024 09:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Query Serving Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants