Skip to content

branch-4.1: [fix](regression) fix stale expected output for one_level_nestedtypes_with_s3data #62488#63273

Merged
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-62488-branch-4.1
May 20, 2026
Merged

branch-4.1: [fix](regression) fix stale expected output for one_level_nestedtypes_with_s3data #62488#63273
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-62488-branch-4.1

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-picked from #62488

…_with_s3data (#62488)

The regression test
`datatype_p0/nested_types/base_cases/one_level_nestedtypes_with_s3data`
was failing with a `CHAR result mismatch` on the `order_qt_sql_s3` tag.

Root-cause analysis:

1. The S3 source files (`one_level_array.parquet`, `.orc`, `.csv`) in
`oss://doris-regression-hk/regression/datalake/` have **not changed
since 2024-07-27** (confirmed via `ossutil stat`). The parquet `c_bool`
column is `list<bool>` (verified with pyarrow). The column type
(`array<boolean>`) in the test plugin has also never changed.
2. On **2025-09-12**, commit `074d88b` (PR #55896, "fix cases from s3")
added `WHERE k1 IS NOT NULL` to the query and regenerated the `.out`. At
that time, Doris had a bug in reading parquet `list<bool>` values inside
nested arrays, producing incorrect boolean values (e.g. `[0, 0, 1, 0,
...]` instead of the correct `[0, 0, 0, 1, 1, ...]`).
3. On **2025-12-16**, commit `0031179b1e6` (PR #58785, "fix parquet topn
lazy mat complex data error result") refactored `ColumnChunkReader` to
use `IN_COLLECTION`/`OFFSET_INDEX` template parameters, giving
nested-array columns a distinct and correct read path. This fix
incidentally corrected the boolean array reading for columns like
`c_bool`.
4. After PR #58785 landed, Doris now reads parquet `list<bool>`
correctly (matching pyarrow), but the `.out` file was never updated,
causing the test to fail.

Fix: force-regenerate `one_level_nestedtypes_with_s3data.out` using the
current correct Doris behavior against the unchanged S3 data.
@github-actions github-actions Bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner May 15, 2026 02:30
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the lfs-detected! Warning Label for use when LFS is detected in the commits of a Pull Request label May 15, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Possible file(s) that should be tracked in LFS detected: 🚨

The following file(s) exceeds the file size limit: 1048576 bytes, as set in the .yml configuration files:

  • regression-test/data/datatype_p0/nested_types/base_cases/one_level_nestedtypes_with_s3data.out

Consider using git-lfs to manage large files.

@mrhhsg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

mrhhsg commented May 15, 2026

/review

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Automated review summary:

  • Scope: this PR only updates regression-test/data/datatype_p0/nested_types/base_cases/one_level_nestedtypes_with_s3data.out, with no product/runtime code changes.
  • Existing review context: no existing inline comments or replies were present, so there were no duplicate concerns to avoid.
  • User focus: no additional user-provided review focus was supplied.
  • Critical checkpoints: no AGENTS.md or repository code-review skill file was present in this checkout; within the available instructions, I checked changed-file scope, regression-output consistency risk, duplicate review context, and whether the diff introduced executable behavior changes. No blocking issue was found.
  • Testing: I did not run the S3 regression locally because this suite depends on configured S3 credentials/environment. The review was limited to diff inspection and surrounding suite context.

Opinion: no requested changes.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label May 15, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@yiguolei yiguolei merged commit 7df5214 into branch-4.1 May 20, 2026
31 of 34 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. lfs-detected! Warning Label for use when LFS is detected in the commits of a Pull Request reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants