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

evalengine: Ensure to pass down the precision #15611

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 2, 2024

Conversation

dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

@dbussink dbussink commented Apr 2, 2024

We were failing to pass down the precision correctly in the compiler which would lead to a panic because we'd see an unexpected type downstream.

Marked for backporting as this triggers an internal panic inside vtgate.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #15610

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

We were failing to pass down the precision correctly in the compiler
which would lead to a panic because we'd see an unexpected type
downstream.

Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink@gmail.com>
@dbussink dbussink added Type: Bug Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 labels Apr 2, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Apr 2, 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 Apr 2, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone Apr 2, 2024
@dbussink dbussink 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 Apr 2, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.07%. Comparing base (e55897b) to head (80d3505).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15611      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.09%   68.07%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1561     1561              
  Lines      195288   195288              
==========================================
- Hits       132974   132947      -27     
- Misses      62314    62341      +27     

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

@vmg vmg merged commit cef95ab into vitessio:main Apr 2, 2024
107 of 116 checks passed
@vmg vmg deleted the dbussink/fix-time-precision branch April 2, 2024 09:35
rohit-nayak-ps pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 3, 2024
…#15612)

Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: vitess-bot[bot] <108069721+vitess-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.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 Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: evalengine fails to compile time expression correctly
4 participants