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

refactor: Remove PhysicalPlan trait and use ExecutionPlan directly #3894

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 11, 2024

Conversation

evenyag
Copy link
Contributor

@evenyag evenyag commented May 9, 2024

I hereby agree to the terms of the GreptimeDB CLA.

Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)

What's changed and what's your intention?

While implementing the RegionScanner trait mentioned in #3886, I need to adapt the scanner to an ExecutionPlan of the datafusion. I found that we could remove the PhysicalPlan trait from the codebase to reduce some indirections.

This PR removes the PhysicalPlan trait and related adapters: DfPhysicalPlanAdapter and PhysicalPlanAdapter.

Checklist

  • I have written the necessary rustdoc comments.
  • I have added the necessary unit tests and integration tests.
  • This PR does not require documentation updates.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the docs-not-required This change does not impact docs. label May 9, 2024
@evenyag evenyag marked this pull request as ready for review May 10, 2024 03:16
@evenyag evenyag requested a review from a team as a code owner May 10, 2024 03:16
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 10, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.96610% with 13 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.68%. Comparing base (fa6c371) to head (6b1c2b3).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3894      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.97%   85.68%   -0.30%     
==========================================
  Files         961      960       -1     
  Lines      164471   164247     -224     
==========================================
- Hits       141409   140738     -671     
- Misses      23062    23509     +447     

Copy link
Collaborator

@fengjiachun fengjiachun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@tisonkun tisonkun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Does this patch close the two issues linked above?

@evenyag
Copy link
Contributor Author

evenyag commented May 10, 2024

LGTM.

Does this patch close the two issues linked above?

No. It is a part of them.

@waynexia waynexia marked this pull request as draft May 10, 2024 07:33
@waynexia
Copy link
Member

Draft this to avoid an incoming potential conflict

Signed-off-by: Ruihang Xia <waynestxia@gmail.com>
@waynexia waynexia marked this pull request as ready for review May 11, 2024 03:32
Signed-off-by: Ruihang Xia <waynestxia@gmail.com>
@waynexia waynexia enabled auto-merge May 11, 2024 03:39
@evenyag
Copy link
Contributor Author

evenyag commented May 11, 2024

Did we fix this test in the main branch?

--- TRY 4 STDERR:        tests-integration::main integration_http_file_test::test_prom_http_api ---
thread 'integration_http_file_test::test_prom_http_api' panicked at tests-integration/tests/http.rs:555:5:
assertion `left == right` failed
  left: Labels(["memory", "cpu"])
 right: Labels(["cpu", "memory"])

@waynexia waynexia added this pull request to the merge queue May 11, 2024
Merged via the queue into GreptimeTeam:main with commit d0820bb May 11, 2024
21 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs-not-required This change does not impact docs.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants