Fix a sneaky bug in rare_terms #51868
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Pinging @elastic/es-analytics-geo (:Analytics/Aggregations) |
When the `rare_terms` aggregation contained another aggregation it'd break them. Most of the time. This happened because the process that it uses to remove buckets that turn out not to be rare was incorrectly merging results from multiple leaves. This'd cause array index out of bounds issues. We didn't catch it in the test because the issue doesn't happen on the very first bucket. And the tests generated data in such a way that the first bucket always contained the rare terms. Randomizing the order of the generated data fixed the test so it caught the issue. Closes elastic#51020
nik9000
force-pushed
the
rare_terms_eep
branch
from
0bd711c
to
ba913e3
Compare
|
The bwc test failure is because I haven't backported the fix. I'll suppress it. |
polyfractal
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2020
|
Thanks for taking care of this this quickly! |
nik9000
added a commit
to nik9000/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2020
When the `rare_terms` aggregation contained another aggregation it'd break them. Most of the time. This happened because the process that it uses to remove buckets that turn out not to be rare was incorrectly merging results from multiple leaves. This'd cause array index out of bounds issues. We didn't catch it in the test because the issue doesn't happen on the very first bucket. And the tests generated data in such a way that the first bucket always contained the rare terms. Randomizing the order of the generated data fixed the test so it caught the issue. Closes elastic#51020
nik9000
added a commit
to nik9000/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2020
When the `rare_terms` aggregation contained another aggregation it'd break them. Most of the time. This happened because the process that it uses to remove buckets that turn out not to be rare was incorrectly merging results from multiple leaves. This'd cause array index out of bounds issues. We didn't catch it in the test because the issue doesn't happen on the very first bucket. And the tests generated data in such a way that the first bucket always contained the rare terms. Randomizing the order of the generated data fixed the test so it caught the issue. Closes elastic#51020
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2020
When the `rare_terms` aggregation contained another aggregation it'd break them. Most of the time. This happened because the process that it uses to remove buckets that turn out not to be rare was incorrectly merging results from multiple leaves. This'd cause array index out of bounds issues. We didn't catch it in the test because the issue doesn't happen on the very first bucket. And the tests generated data in such a way that the first bucket always contained the rare terms. Randomizing the order of the generated data fixed the test so it caught the issue. Closes #51020
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 12, 2020
When the `rare_terms` aggregation contained another aggregation it'd break them. Most of the time. This happened because the process that it uses to remove buckets that turn out not to be rare was incorrectly merging results from multiple leaves. This'd cause array index out of bounds issues. We didn't catch it in the test because the issue doesn't happen on the very first bucket. And the tests generated data in such a way that the first bucket always contained the rare terms. Randomizing the order of the generated data fixed the test so it caught the issue. Closes #51020
|
I'm finished backporting but I'm leaving the |
nik9000
added a commit
to nik9000/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 12, 2020
Now that elastic#51868 is fully backported we can run its tests in the backwards compatibility tests.
nik9000
added a commit
to nik9000/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 12, 2020
Now that elastic#51868 is fully backported we can run its tests in the backwards compatibility tests.
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 12, 2020
Now that #51868 is fully backported we can run its tests in the backwards compatibility tests.
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 12, 2020
Now that #51868 is fully backported we can run its tests in the backwards compatibility tests.
All done! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
When the
rare_termsaggregation contained another aggregation it'dbreak them. Most of the time. This happened because the process that it
uses to remove buckets that turn out not to be rare was incorrectly
merging results from multiple leaves. This'd cause array index out of
bounds issues. We didn't catch it in the test because the issue doesn't
happen on the very first bucket. And the tests generated data in such a
way that the first bucket always contained the rare terms. Randomizing
the order of the generated data fixed the test so it caught the issue.
Closes #51020