Skip to content

Conversation

@mcheshkov
Copy link
Contributor

Check List

  • Tests has been run in packages where changes made if available
  • Linter has been run for changed code
  • Tests for the changes have been added if not covered yet
  • Docs have been added / updated if required

Description of Changes Made (if issue reference is not provided)

Now it should catch plans like Join(CubeScan, Projection(CubeScan))

@mcheshkov mcheshkov force-pushed the stricter-cube-join-check branch 2 times, most recently from 23dc3be to 96574fb Compare February 18, 2025 14:41
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 18, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 43.47826% with 39 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.75%. Comparing base (0e95f18) to head (205e40b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...t/cubesql/cubesql/src/compile/engine/df/wrapper.rs 0.00% 27 Missing ⚠️
...t/cubesql/cubesql/src/compile/rewrite/converter.rs 70.00% 12 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9043      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.81%   83.75%   -0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         229      229              
  Lines       82658    82604      -54     
==========================================
- Hits        69283    69186      -97     
- Misses      13375    13418      +43     
Flag Coverage Δ
cubesql 83.75% <43.47%> (-0.07%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@mcheshkov mcheshkov force-pushed the stricter-cube-join-check branch 2 times, most recently from 5bac14c to cedf4d4 Compare February 26, 2025 13:05
@mcheshkov mcheshkov force-pushed the stricter-cube-join-check branch from cedf4d4 to e3a4099 Compare March 5, 2025 23:45
@mcheshkov mcheshkov changed the title [WIP] fix(cubesql): Make cube join check stricter fix(cubesql): Make cube join check stricter Mar 5, 2025
Now it should disallow any plans with ungrouped CubeScan inside, like Join(CubeScan, Projection(CubeScan(ungrouped=true)))

test_join_cubes_with_postprocessing was broken: it joined grouped CubeScan with ungrouped CubeScan by __cubeJoinField

test_join_cubes_with_postprocessing_and_no_cubejoinfield should already be covered by ungrouped-grouped join pushdown
@mcheshkov mcheshkov force-pushed the stricter-cube-join-check branch from e3a4099 to 205e40b Compare March 6, 2025 11:37
@mcheshkov mcheshkov marked this pull request as ready for review March 6, 2025 14:49
@mcheshkov mcheshkov requested a review from a team as a code owner March 6, 2025 14:49
@mcheshkov mcheshkov merged commit feaf03b into master Mar 6, 2025
70 checks passed
@mcheshkov mcheshkov deleted the stricter-cube-join-check branch March 6, 2025 14:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants