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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix Scale and length handling in CASE and JOIN bind variables #15787

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Apr 25, 2024
Merged

Fix Scale and length handling in CASE and JOIN bind variables #15787

merged 6 commits into from
Apr 25, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR fixes a part of the problem described in #15784 (comment).

This PR fixes 2 issues -

  1. Correctly handle scale and length for decimal in case implementation of evalengine.
  2. Fix the bind variable passed down in JOIN engine primitive for DECIMAL type, taking the scale and length into account.

Related Issue(s)

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

Deployment Notes

@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Apr 24, 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 Apr 24, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Apr 24, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone Apr 24, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 72.22222% with 20 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.43%. Comparing base (4c2df48) to head (94fe5b1).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
go/mysql/json/parser.go 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/eval_enum.go 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/eval_set.go 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/eval_tuple.go 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/engine/join.go 57.14% 3 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/eval.go 75.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15787      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.44%   68.43%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1558     1558              
  Lines      195822   195885      +63     
==========================================
+ Hits       134025   134049      +24     
- Misses      61797    61836      +39

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

dbussink
dbussink reviewed Apr 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/compiler_test.go Outdated
else 0
end) * 0.01`,
result: `DECIMAL(0.0001)`,
typeWanted: evalengine.NewTypeEx(sqltypes.Decimal, collations.CollationBinaryID, false, 4, 4),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please make sure to merge / rebase since the signature of this function has changed.

dbussink
dbussink reviewed Apr 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/expr_logical.go Outdated
@@ -691,6 +692,8 @@ func (cs *CaseExpr) compile(c *compiler) (ctype, error) {
}

ta.add(then.Type, then.Flag)
scale = max(scale, then.Scale)
size = max(size, then.Size)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this logic apply to other usages of the typeAggregation as well? And should this really be part of typeAggregation therefore instead? Seems like that might be more appropriate to refactor it into that?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have made the required changes. I wasn't sure what the length and scale for other data types looks like, so I just passed 0 from everywhere.

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 requested a review from mattlord as a code owner April 24, 2024 09:21
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 requested a review from dbussink April 24, 2024 09:23
systay
systay reviewed Apr 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtgate/engine/join.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 merged commit 7ca2b81 into vitessio:main Apr 25, 2024
104 checks passed
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 deleted the tpch-case-problem branch April 25, 2024 07:44
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2024
Merged
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@systay systay systay approved these changes

@dbussink dbussink dbussink approved these changes

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal Awaiting requested review from harshit-gangal harshit-gangal is a code owner

@frouioui frouioui Awaiting requested review from frouioui frouioui is a code owner

@mattlord mattlord Awaiting requested review from mattlord mattlord is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: Query Serving Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v20.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@GuptaManan100 @dbussink @systay