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

Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' #260

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rhou1
Copy link
Contributor

@rhou1 rhou1 commented Feb 13, 2017

Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.

Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.

Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.

@rhou1
Copy link
Contributor Author

rhou1 commented Feb 13, 2017

Chun,

Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.

…ement has

an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework.  Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.

Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte.  It verifies content
as well as order.  Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.

Added a whitelist file for orderby tests.  Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause.  The order-by clause cannot be
validated.  Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future.  There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit.  They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
Copy link
Member

agirish commented Feb 14, 2017

I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.

-1 for now. Let's discuss more.

@rhou1
Copy link
Contributor Author

rhou1 commented Feb 14, 2017

If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.

Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?

Sure, let's discuss more.

@agirish
Copy link
Member

agirish commented Feb 14, 2017

No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.

@rhou1
Copy link
Contributor Author

rhou1 commented Feb 14, 2017

Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.

Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.

Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.

@agirish
Copy link
Member

agirish commented Feb 14, 2017

Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.

@agirish agirish changed the title Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat… Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' Mar 24, 2017
@agirish agirish requested review from agirish and cchang738 March 24, 2017 00:12
@cchang738
Copy link
Contributor

cchang738 commented Mar 24, 2017

@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?

@agirish
Copy link
Member

agirish commented Mar 24, 2017

@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.

Copy link
Member

@agirish agirish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending

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.

3 participants