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

Fix schemadiff semantics handling #16073

Merged

Conversation

dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

@dbussink dbussink commented Jun 6, 2024

The problem here is that we store entries in .Tables with their unescaped names, which is entirely safe to do here.

However, we would use sqlparser.String to retrieve them. Now that normally works for table names, unless a table name is a SQL keyword. In that case, it turns into the escaped version with backticks and the whole table can't be found for semantic analysis.

This can happen for example if you name a table Order.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #16072

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

The problem here is that we store entries in `.Tables` with their
unescaped names, which is entirely safe to do here.

However, we would use `sqlparser.String` to retrieve them. Now that
normally works for table names, unless a table name is a SQL keyword. In
that case, it turns into the escaped version with backticks and the
whole table can't be found for semantic analysis.

This can happen for example if you name a table `Order`.

Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jun 6, 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 Jun 6, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Jun 6, 2024
@dbussink dbussink added Type: Bug Component: Query Serving and 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 Jun 6, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 6, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.20%. Comparing base (6def783) to head (0998590).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16073      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.20%   68.20%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1541     1541              
  Lines      197332   197332              
==========================================
- Hits       134598   134587      -11     
- Misses      62734    62745      +11     

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

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit 3fb15b0 into vitessio:main Jun 6, 2024
102 of 107 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the dbussink/fix-schemadiff-semantics branch June 6, 2024 10:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: schemadiff semantic analysis for views doesn't handle table names that are SQL keywords
3 participants