fix: ut ParserStreamTest.TestQuery exec failed.

[xiao-77]

Description

Issue(s)

• Close/close/Fix/fix/Resolve/resolve: Issue Link

Checklist

Please check the items in the checklist if applicable.

• Is the user manual updated?
• Are the test cases passed and automated?
• Is there no significant decrease in test coverage?

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @xiao-77, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a failure in the ParserStreamTest.TestQuery unit test by modifying the OutputOrder value within the serialized query calculation plan. The change ensures that the test's expected query plan correctly specifies the sorting output order, thereby fixing the test execution.

Highlights

• Unit Test Fix: Corrected the OutputOrder parameter within the PhysiSort node of the query calculation plan JSON for two test cases in ParserStreamTest.TestQuery.
• Test Stability: This adjustment resolves a previously failing unit test, ensuring the test accurately reflects the expected query execution plan.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog

• source/libs/parser/test/parStreamTest.cpp
  • Updated the OutputOrder field from '0' to '1' in the JSON string representing the query calculation plan for two setCreateStreamQueryCalcPlan calls within the TestQuery function. This corrects the expected query plan for stream creation tests.

Activity

• The pull request was opened by xiao-77 to fix a failing unit test.
• The PR description contains a generic template, indicating no specific human-written details beyond the title's intent.
• The checklist items in the PR description are currently unchecked, suggesting no formal verification steps have been marked as completed yet.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a unit test failure in ParserStreamTest.TestQuery by updating the expected JSON output for the query execution plan. The fix addresses the OutputOrder field in the PhysiSort operator when ORDER BY clauses are present in stream queries.

Changes:

• Updates the expected OutputOrder value from "0" to "1" in the PhysiSort node for queries with ORDER BY clauses

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request fixes a failing unit test in ParserStreamTest.TestQuery by correcting the expected physical query plan. The change updates the OutputOrder property in the PhysiSort node of the hardcoded JSON plan to reflect that the output is sorted, which aligns with the ORDER BY clause in the test's SQL query.

The fix is correct. However, the test file contains numerous large, single-line JSON strings for query plans, which are extremely difficult to read and maintain. I've added a comment suggesting a refactor to use C++ raw string literals to improve readability. This would be a valuable improvement for the long-term health of this test suite.

[gemini-code-assist]

While the change to OutputOrder is correct, these extremely long, single-line JSON strings are very difficult to read, maintain, and review. A small change like this becomes hard to spot in a large diff.

To improve readability and maintainability, consider using C++11 raw string literals. This would allow you to format the JSON across multiple lines without needing to escape characters.

For example:

setCreateStreamQueryCalcPlan(&expectOrderBy, R"json({
  "NodeType": "1138",
  "PhysiPlan": {
    "QueryId": "0",
    // ... rest of the JSON
  }
})json");

This would make future changes to these test plans much easier to work with. I'd recommend applying this refactoring to all similar long JSON strings in this file in a follow-up change.