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

Fix assigning parameterized view value by function #63502

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

Conversation

SmitaRKulkarni
Copy link
Member

Changelog category (leave one):

  • Bug Fix (user-visible misbehavior in an official stable release)

Changelog entry (a user-readable short description of the changes that goes to CHANGELOG.md):

Support executing function during assignment of parameterized view value

Documentation entry for user-facing changes

  • Documentation is written (mandatory for new features)

Information about CI checks: https://clickhouse.com/docs/en/development/continuous-integration/

Modify your CI run

NOTE: If your merge the PR with modified CI you MUST KNOW what you are doing
NOTE: Checked options will be applied if set before CI RunConfig/PrepareRunConfig step

Include tests (required builds will be added automatically):

  • Fast test
  • Integration Tests
  • Stateless tests
  • Stateful tests
  • Unit tests
  • Performance tests
  • All with ASAN
  • All with TSAN
  • All with Analyzer
  • All with Azure
  • Add your option here

Exclude tests:

  • Fast test
  • Integration Tests
  • Stateless tests
  • Stateful tests
  • Performance tests
  • All with ASAN
  • All with TSAN
  • All with MSAN
  • All with UBSAN
  • All with Coverage
  • All with Aarch64
  • Add your option here

Extra options:

  • do not test (only style check)
  • disable merge-commit (no merge from master before tests)
  • disable CI cache (job reuse)

Only specified batches in multi-batch jobs:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

@robot-clickhouse robot-clickhouse added the pr-bugfix Pull request with bugfix, not backported by default label May 8, 2024
@robot-clickhouse
Copy link
Member

robot-clickhouse commented May 8, 2024

This is an automated comment for commit 5eeadb6 with description of existing statuses. It's updated for the latest CI running

❌ Click here to open a full report in a separate page

Check nameDescriptionStatus
AST fuzzerRuns randomly generated queries to catch program errors. The build type is optionally given in parenthesis. If it fails, ask a maintainer for help❌ failure
CI runningA meta-check that indicates the running CI. Normally, it's in success or pending state. The failed status indicates some problems with the PR⏳ pending
Stateless testsRuns stateless functional tests for ClickHouse binaries built in various configurations -- release, debug, with sanitizers, etc❌ failure
Stress testRuns stateless functional tests concurrently from several clients to detect concurrency-related errors❌ failure
Successful checks
Check nameDescriptionStatus
A SyncThere's no description for the check yet, please add it to tests/ci/ci_config.py:CHECK_DESCRIPTIONS✅ success
ClickBenchRuns [ClickBench](https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/) with instant-attach table✅ success
ClickHouse build checkBuilds ClickHouse in various configurations for use in further steps. You have to fix the builds that fail. Build logs often has enough information to fix the error, but you might have to reproduce the failure locally. The cmake options can be found in the build log, grepping for cmake. Use these options and follow the general build process✅ success
Compatibility checkChecks that clickhouse binary runs on distributions with old libc versions. If it fails, ask a maintainer for help✅ success
Docker keeper imageThe check to build and optionally push the mentioned image to docker hub✅ success
Docker server imageThe check to build and optionally push the mentioned image to docker hub✅ success
Docs checkBuilds and tests the documentation✅ success
Fast testNormally this is the first check that is ran for a PR. It builds ClickHouse and runs most of stateless functional tests, omitting some. If it fails, further checks are not started until it is fixed. Look at the report to see which tests fail, then reproduce the failure locally as described here✅ success
Flaky testsChecks if new added or modified tests are flaky by running them repeatedly, in parallel, with more randomization. Functional tests are run 100 times with address sanitizer, and additional randomization of thread scheduling. Integrational tests are run up to 10 times. If at least once a new test has failed, or was too long, this check will be red. We don't allow flaky tests, read the doc✅ success
Install packagesChecks that the built packages are installable in a clear environment✅ success
Integration testsThe integration tests report. In parenthesis the package type is given, and in square brackets are the optional part/total tests✅ success
Mergeable CheckChecks if all other necessary checks are successful✅ success
PR CheckThere's no description for the check yet, please add it to tests/ci/ci_config.py:CHECK_DESCRIPTIONS✅ success
Performance ComparisonMeasure changes in query performance. The performance test report is described in detail here. In square brackets are the optional part/total tests✅ success
Stateful testsRuns stateful functional tests for ClickHouse binaries built in various configurations -- release, debug, with sanitizers, etc✅ success
Style checkRuns a set of checks to keep the code style clean. If some of tests failed, see the related log from the report✅ success
Unit testsRuns the unit tests for different release types✅ success
Upgrade checkRuns stress tests on server version from last release and then tries to upgrade it to the version from the PR. It checks if the new server can successfully startup without any errors, crashes or sanitizer asserts✅ success

@kssenii kssenii self-assigned this May 8, 2024
: parameter_values(parameter_values_)
,context(context_)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
,context(context_)
, context(context_)


create view pv as select * from table_pv where timestamp_field > {timestamp_param:DateTime};

select * from pv (timestamp_param=toDateTime('2024-04-01 00:00:01'));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's add a test for the case when result of a function is not a constant expression and expect a certain error code? Just in case to make sure that the behaviour will be expected and the user gets an understandable error

@@ -64,15 +67,20 @@ class FunctionParameterValuesVisitor
parameter_values[identifier->name()] = convertFieldToString(cast_literal->value);
}
}
else
{
ASTPtr res = evaluateConstantExpressionOrIdentifierAsLiteral(expression_list->children[1], context);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMHO it's better to avoid using the old infrastructure.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

do you mean evaluateConstantExpressionOrIdentifierAsLiteral function ? Could you please suggest what cna be used instead in new analyzer?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I mean this function. It uses TreeRewriter and ExpressionAnalyzer to evaluate the constant. It's an excellent question if we need to be able to execute some AST to get a constant value.
However, I see many usages of evaluateConstantExpressionOrIdentifierAsLiteral. So, I suspect we need to rewrite it, but it's better to do that in a separate PR. It shouldn't be a blocker for your PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pr-bugfix Pull request with bugfix, not backported by default
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants