[Enhancement](udf) Reject bitmap, hll, and quantile_state in udf create#63849
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
Collaborator
Author
|
run buildall |
Collaborator
Author
|
/review |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review completed for PR 63849. I did not find a blocking correctness issue in the actual GitHub PR patch.
Critical checkpoint conclusions:
- Goal/test: The PR rejects bitmap, HLL, and quantile_state for Java/Python UDF/UDAF/UDTF create paths. The new FE unit test and Python regression suites cover direct and nested object-type cases.
- Scope/minimality: The implementation is small and localized to CreateFunctionCommand, with tests added for the new validation.
- Concurrency/lifecycle: No new concurrency or lifecycle-sensitive behavior is introduced.
- Config/compatibility/protocol: No new config, persisted format, or FE-BE protocol change is introduced.
- Parallel paths: Java and Python paths both call the new validation; RPC behavior is unchanged.
- Error handling: Validation raises AnalysisException and keeps failures at analysis time.
- Test coverage: Coverage exists for Java/Python scalar and aggregate FE paths plus Python UDF/UDAF/UDTF regression cases. I did not run tests in this review runner.
- Observability/transactions/data writes/memory: Not applicable to this PR.
- Performance: The recursive type validation is bounded by type nesting and not on a query hot path.
User focus: No additional user-provided review focus was specified.
Contributor
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 31966 ms |
Contributor
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 171440 ms |
Contributor
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
Contributor
FE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
Contributor
|
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
github-actions
Bot
added
approved
Contributor
|
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem Summary:
UDF creation currently allows
BITMAP,HLL, andQUANTILE_STATEin function signatures, but these object types are not exposed to Java/Python UDF runtimes as first-class values. They are effectively bridged as opaque bytes, and marked unsupported in doc