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 panic in user defined aggregation functions planning #16398

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 16, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR fixes the panic found in #16397.
On investigation it was found that this panic was introduced in the changes in #16049. This PR fixes the panic and also adds test cases to verify we are able to plan udf queries properly and fail in case we are unable to push them down to MySQL.

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

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jul 16, 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 Jul 16, 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 Jul 16, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Jul 16, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 16, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.67%. Comparing base (fd6411d) to head (f9e7b88).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16398      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.68%   68.67%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1548     1548              
  Lines      199063   199087      +24     
==========================================
+ Hits       136721   136727       +6     
- Misses      62342    62360      +18     

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

Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice fix!

@systay systay merged commit af8f42a into vitessio:main Jul 16, 2024
140 of 141 checks passed
@systay systay deleted the fix-udf-complex branch July 16, 2024 10:54
GuptaManan100 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2024
Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
GuptaManan100 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2024
…ng (#16398) (#16404)

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
Co-authored-by: Manan Gupta <35839558+GuptaManan100@users.noreply.github.com>
venkatraju pushed a commit to slackhq/vitess that referenced this pull request Aug 29, 2024
)

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 Backport to: release-20.0 Needs to be backport to release-20.0 Component: Query Serving Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Panic in query planning of a query using user defined aggregation function
3 participants