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

[release-18.0] bugfix: Allow cross-keyspace joins (#16520) #16522

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 5, 2024

Conversation

vitess-bot[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot commented Aug 1, 2024

Description

This is a backport of #16520

Copy link
Contributor Author

vitess-bot bot commented Aug 1, 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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

vitess-bot bot commented Aug 1, 2024

Hello @systay, there are conflicts in this backport.

Please address them in order to merge this Pull Request. You can execute the snippet below to reset your branch and resolve the conflict manually.

Make sure you replace origin by the name of the vitessio/vitess remote

git fetch --all
gh pr checkout 16522 -R vitessio/vitess
git reset --hard origin/release-18.0
git cherry-pick -m 1 d4d64e844908a971a5ae8b554baa9c6ac42e81bc

@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 Aug 1, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v18.0.7 milestone Aug 1, 2024
@systay systay removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says Skip CI Skip CI actions from running NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request Merge Conflict NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Aug 5, 2024
@systay systay marked this pull request as ready for review August 5, 2024 05:39
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <andres@planetscale.com>
@systay systay force-pushed the backport-16520-to-release-18.0 branch from 6ef3732 to ddf8601 Compare August 5, 2024 05:44
@systay systay merged commit bae3c5f into release-18.0 Aug 5, 2024
205 checks passed
@systay systay deleted the backport-16520-to-release-18.0 branch August 5, 2024 06:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants