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

bugfix: use the proper interface for comment directives #14267

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 14, 2023
Merged

bugfix: use the proper interface for comment directives #14267

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 14, 2023

Conversation

systay
Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay commented Oct 12, 2023

Description

The bug report #14090 exposed an issue where we where not reading comment directives correctly for most statement types. This PR makes sure we read the directives correctly in a lot more situations.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #14090

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on the CI
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@systay
bugfix: use the proper interface for comment directives
ce6d9b8 
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <andres@planetscale.com>
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Oct 12, 2023

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 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 Oct 12, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Oct 12, 2023
systay
systay commented Oct 12, 2023
View reviewed changes
go/vt/sqlparser/comments.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@systay systay added Backport to: release-17.0 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 labels Oct 12, 2023
@systay
bugfix: don't cache DDL queries
6fb7bc2 
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <andres@planetscale.com>
harshit-gangal
harshit-gangal reviewed Oct 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtgate/executor_ddl_test.go
Comment on lines +58 to 61
executor, _, _, _, ctx := createExecutorEnv(t)
session := NewSafeSession(&vtgatepb.Session{TargetString: KsTestUnsharded})
enableDirectDDL = testcase.enableDirectDDL
enableOnlineDDL = testcase.enableOnlineDDL
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this change is not required anymore, correct?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

not really, but I still like it. cleaner to not re-use between tests

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

executor is expected to be reused. This also helped in realising the caching issue with other statements.

harshit-gangal
harshit-gangal reviewed Oct 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtgate/executor_test.go
@@ -1383,6 +1381,7 @@ func TestExecutorDDLFk(t *testing.T) {
for _, stmt := range stmts {
for _, fkMode := range []string{"allow", "disallow"} {
t.Run(stmt+fkMode, func(t *testing.T) {
executor, _, _, sbc, ctx := createExecutorEnv(t)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same comment as before

harshit-gangal
harshit-gangal approved these changes Oct 13, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

few comments, rest looks good.

@harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

I do not think we should backport this to old releases as vexplain statement is not a production-related bug.

@systay
test: add no-scatter end2end to CI build
615e9bb 
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <andres@planetscale.com>
@systay
Copy link
Collaborator Author

systay commented Oct 13, 2023

I do not think we should backport this to old releases as vexplain statement is not a production-related bug.

I don't have strong opinions on the subject. @deepthi?

@deepthi
Copy link
Member

deepthi commented Oct 13, 2023

I do not think we should backport this to old releases as vexplain statement is not a production-related bug.

I don't have strong opinions on the subject. @deepthi?

That's fine. We should amend the release notes for v15+ and list this as a known issue instead.

@systay systay merged commit 314ebcf into vitessio:main Oct 14, 2023
118 checks passed
@systay systay deleted the bug-commented branch October 14, 2023 08:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal harshit-gangal approved these changes

@frouioui frouioui frouioui approved these changes

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 Awaiting requested review from GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 is a code owner

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

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach Awaiting requested review from shlomi-noach shlomi-noach is a code owner

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps Awaiting requested review from rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps is a code owner

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi 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
v19.0.0
4 participants
@systay @harshit-gangal @deepthi @frouioui