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

expression: fix wrong behavior in values function for Bit(1). #15350

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Mar 19, 2020

Conversation

wshwsh12
Copy link
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Fixes #15310

What is changed and how it works?

Check the data length in built-in function ValuesInt().

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test

Code changes

Side effects

  • Possible performance regression
  • Increased code complexity

Related changes

  • Need to cherry-pick to the release branch 2.1 and 3.0

Release note

Fix wrong behavior in values function for type bit(n).

@wshwsh12 wshwsh12 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 13, 2020 02:15
@ghost ghost requested review from qw4990 and SunRunAway and removed request for a team March 13, 2020 02:15
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 13, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #15350 into master will not change coverage by %.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             master     #15350   +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage   80.3984%   80.3984%           
===========================================
  Files           502        502           
  Lines        133984     133984           
===========================================
  Hits         107721     107721           
  Misses        17819      17819           
  Partials       8444       8444           

Copy link
Contributor

@SunRunAway SunRunAway left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no better idea.
LGTM

@SunRunAway SunRunAway added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Mar 18, 2020
@SunRunAway SunRunAway requested a review from qw4990 March 18, 2020 12:51
Copy link
Contributor

@qw4990 qw4990 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@zz-jason zz-jason added status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Mar 18, 2020
@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Mar 18, 2020

/run-all-tests

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Mar 18, 2020

@wshwsh12 merge failed.

@wshwsh12
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Mar 19, 2020

/run-all-tests

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Mar 19, 2020

@wshwsh12 merge failed.

@wshwsh12
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-unit-test

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Mar 19, 2020

cherry pick to release-2.1 in PR #15485

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Mar 19, 2020

cherry pick to release-3.0 in PR #15486

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Mar 19, 2020

cherry pick to release-3.1 in PR #15487

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component/expression status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. type/bugfix This PR fixes a bug.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Get error data too long when use values for bit(1).
6 participants