Skip to content

[fix](case)Use relative cooldown time instead of absolute time in storage policy test case #51572

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 9, 2025

Conversation

CalvinKirs
Copy link
Member

What problem does this PR solve?

This PR updates the test case for creating a storage policy to use relative time (e.g., now() + interval) instead of an absolute UTC timestamp when setting the cooldown_datetime property.

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

@hello-stephen
Copy link
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?

@CalvinKirs
Copy link
Member Author

run buildall

@CalvinKirs CalvinKirs force-pushed the master-cooldown_datetime branch from e8b6703 to f389778 Compare June 9, 2025 07:36
…rage policy test case

This PR updates the test case for creating a storage policy to use relative time (e.g., now() + interval) instead of an absolute UTC timestamp when setting the cooldown_datetime property.
@CalvinKirs CalvinKirs force-pushed the master-cooldown_datetime branch from f389778 to 8b2d987 Compare June 9, 2025 07:38
@CalvinKirs
Copy link
Member Author

run buildall

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Jun 9, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 9, 2025

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

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 9, 2025

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@CalvinKirs CalvinKirs merged commit 2462b21 into apache:master Jun 9, 2025
25 of 26 checks passed
@CalvinKirs CalvinKirs deleted the master-cooldown_datetime branch June 9, 2025 10:34
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.

4 participants