-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11.6k
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
SSE: Warn on dropped items in Union in Math Operation #72682
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f203284
SSE: (WIP) Warn on dropped items in Union
kylebrandt e74ea6f
update union test
kylebrandt 2d089e1
limit part of warning
kylebrandt 4efb20c
add spaces in warning
kylebrandt ee3b042
move to func
kylebrandt d6d23dd
clear TODO, reduce repeated code
kylebrandt 0fb2669
lint fix
kylebrandt b3cfb8b
test update
kylebrandt 889746f
review fixup
kylebrandt File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ func (t NodeType) String() string { | |
return "NodeString" | ||
case NodeNumber: | ||
return "NodeNumber" | ||
case NodeVar: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. random fix, can go in another PR if this isn't merged |
||
return "NodeVar" | ||
default: | ||
return "NodeUnknown" | ||
} | ||
|
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I understand the approach. I wonder if we can hold only indices of the unmatched. In this case, we will not have to pre-allocate slices, which can be pretty big (I've seen 10k dimensions) but act more lazily because dropped metrics are not something that appears often during regular rule evaluation.
This will require no-data case to be handled separately but I think it will help readability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is what I tried at first but ran into difficulty. With the nested loop, we loop over B results multiple times. So during that loop - it is not known if a result will be matched in a future loop. So I ended up creating bool mask where I mark as matched during the loop iteration, and then take the unmatched items.