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

bugfix: fixing jdbc client sql feature not supported exception #12480

Conversation

jaceksan
Copy link
Contributor

Suppress emitting SQLFeatureNotSupportedException when Pinot does not support some JDBC features.
It prevents developers from integrating Pinot with 3rd-party platforms, e.g. BI platforms, which collect metadata about tables/columns and these operations are failing with this exception. It would be annoying to try/except in every such case.

The last commit contains a fix of TABLE_CATALOG column name - based on JDBC standard it must be TABLE_CAT and it must be presented in the first place of each metadata table.

@xiangfu0
Copy link
Contributor

Also cc: @timveil

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 23, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 25 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 27.72%. Comparing base (6b0cfeb) to head (33258ca).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files Patch % Lines
...ache/pinot/client/base/AbstractBaseConnection.java 0.00% 25 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #12480       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     46.87%   27.72%   -19.15%     
+ Complexity      948      207      -741     
=============================================
  Files          1829     2436      +607     
  Lines         96638   133217    +36579     
  Branches      15656    20635     +4979     
=============================================
- Hits          45300    36939     -8361     
- Misses        48104    93468    +45364     
+ Partials       3234     2810      -424     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (?)
integration <0.01% <0.00%> (?)
integration1 <0.01% <0.00%> (?)
integration2 0.00% <0.00%> (?)
java-11 ?
java-21 27.72% <0.00%> (-18.99%) ⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-false 27.72% <0.00%> (-19.14%) ⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-true 27.72% <0.00%> (-18.94%) ⬇️
temurin 27.72% <0.00%> (-19.15%) ⬇️
unittests 27.72% <0.00%> (-19.16%) ⬇️
unittests1 ?
unittests2 27.72% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@xiangfu0 xiangfu0 merged commit fe75309 into apache:master Feb 23, 2024
18 of 19 checks passed
@xiangfu0
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @jaceksan for making the change!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants