This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 10, 2021. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
💔 Breaking Changes
🏠 Internal
I'm not sure if the series limit logic changed as part of apache/superset#16660 (personally I couldn't find anything abnormal which gets invoked if the series limit is truthy, i.e., not
None
or0
unless perviously there was also a requirement for a sort-by metric) but it seems like either a sub-query or two-phase query runs even if they user didn't explicitly define a series limit per the UI as it falls back to the default (100).Per the attached screenshot, when clearing the limit there's no indication that a limit is being defined—I would speculate that the user would sense the limit is undefined, i.e.,
None
(which is equivalent to0
):however the form-data falls back to the default, resulting in an unexpected sub-query or two-phase query,
The TL;DR is I'm not sure if there's been a regression in the backend but it does feel like a UX issue. The "fix" is merely to set the default to
0
which is consistent with the Python logic.The other change is merely to revert #1033, i.e., remove the default, as it seems like said change broke the UX.
Note @etr2460 and @villebro I'm not sure if this is considered a breaking change given it could impact some charts, i.e., in theory there were charts which previously showed 100 series due to the limit but now will show an unbounded number. It does seem we having been gating the Apache Superset releases with these types of breaking changes.