Partiql eval continue #1370

yliuuuu · 2024-02-13T18:24:12Z

Relevant Issues

[Closes/Related To] Issue #XXX

Description

A collection of small fixes
1. Port the change from resolve nullable type causes a dynamic call #1366
2. Dynamic function matches logic.
3. Comparator support for Big Integer.
4. Substring function name.

Other Information

Updated Unreleased Section in CHANGELOG: [YES/NO]
- < If NO, why? >
Any backward-incompatible changes? [YES/NO]
- < If YES, why? >
- < For this purpose, we define backward-incompatible changes as changes that—when consumed—can potentially result in
  errors for users that are using our public APIs or the entities that have public visibility in our code-base. >
Any new external dependencies? [YES/NO]
- < If YES, which ones and why? >
- < In addition, please also mention any other alternatives you've considered and the reason they've been discarded >
Do your changes comply with the Contributing Guidelines
and Code Style Guidelines? [YES/NO]

License Information

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

github-actions · 2024-02-13T18:36:46Z

Conformance comparison report-Cross Engine

	Base (eval)	legacy	+/-
% Passing	78.88%	92.52%	13.65%
✅ Passing	4589	5383	794
❌ Failing	1229	435	-794
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 4408

Number failing in both: 254

Number passing in eval engine but fail in legacy engine: 181

Number failing in eval engine but pass in legacy engine: 975
⁉️ CONFORMANCE REPORT REGRESSION DETECTED ⁉️
The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.
975 test(s) were failing in eval but now pass in legacy. Before merging, confirm they are intended to pass.
The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-EVAL

	Base (`d749103`)	`9670fc6`	+/-
% Passing	77.09%	78.88%	1.79%
✅ Passing	4485	4589	104
❌ Failing	1333	1229	-104
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 4483

Number failing in both: 1227

Number passing in Base (d749103) but now fail: 2

Number failing in Base (d749103) but now pass: 106
⁉️ CONFORMANCE REPORT REGRESSION DETECTED ⁉️. The following test(s) were previously passing but now fail:

Click here to see

MYSQL_SELECT_BUG_01, compileOption: PERMISSIVE
MYSQL_SELECT_BUG_01, compileOption: LEGACY

106 test(s) were previously failing but now pass. Before merging, confirm they are intended to pass The complete list can be found in GitHub CI summary, either from Step Summary or in the Artifact.

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-LEGACY

	Base (`d749103`)	`9670fc6`	+/-
% Passing	92.51%	92.52%	0.02%
✅ Passing	5382	5383	1
❌ Failing	436	435	-1
🔶 Ignored	0	0	0
Total Tests	5818	5818	0
Number passing in both: 5382

Number failing in both: 435

Number passing in Base (d749103) but now fail: 0

Number failing in Base (d749103) but now pass: 1
The following test(s) were previously failing but now pass. Before merging, confirm they are intended to pass:

Click here to see

MYSQL_SELECT_29, compileOption: LEGACY

codecov-commenter · 2024-02-13T19:53:51Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (partiql-eval@d749103). Click here to learn what that means.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             partiql-eval    #1370   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   50.32%           
  Complexity              ?     1045           
===============================================
  Files                   ?      165           
  Lines                   ?    13129           
  Branches                ?     2452           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?     6607           
  Misses                  ?     5862           
  Partials                ?      660

Flag	Coverage Δ
CLI	`13.77% <ø> (?)`
EXAMPLES	`80.28% <ø> (?)`
LANG	`54.71% <ø> (?)`

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.

rchowell · 2024-02-15T23:22:07Z

partiql-eval/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/eval/internal/operator/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt

+                    val c = coercions[i]
+                    when {
+                        c == null -> return false
+                        c.input != args[i].type -> return false
+                        c.target != types[i] -> return false
+                    }


Could you please add a one-line comment to clarify the conditional?

johnedquinn · 2024-02-19T20:50:10Z

partiql-eval/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/eval/internal/operator/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt

+                    val c = coercions[i]
+                    when {
+                        c == null -> return false
+                        c.input != args[i].type -> return false
+                        c.target != types[i] -> return false
+                    }


I feel like the logic can be simplified and should be a bit different:

internal fun matches(args: Array<PartiQLValue>): Boolean { for (i in args.indices) { val target = coercions[i]?.input ?: types[i] if (args[i].type != target && target != PartiQLValueType.ANY) { return false } } return true }

Since we've already pre-computed the coercions, we can assume that c.target != types[i] should never return true. And, while this isn't part of your PR, there is a bug in line 63-64.

By bug you mean we can not return true if only one signature parameter if ANY right?

partiql-types/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/value/util/NumberExtensions.kt

johnedquinn · 2024-02-19T20:56:24Z

test/partiql-tests-runner/src/test/kotlin/org/partiql/runner/executor/EvalExecutor.kt

@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ class EvalExecutor(
        if (v1.isNull && v2.isNull) {
            return true
        }
-        if (v1 == v2) {
+        if (comparator.compare(v1, v2) == 0) {


NULL/MISSING according to your other comment would cause problems here, right?

Yes.

We should not use the comparator here, we should have the equals or hash code method implemented in the value class.

But the comparator is at the moment the only comparator, specifically when it comes to bag comparison.

I think we can leave this line here but add a TODO.

Is there a specific scenario where this was failing? I can see that all of the value impls are data classes with the exception of collections and structs.

johnedquinn · 2024-02-19T20:59:58Z

partiql-planner/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/planner/internal/FnResolver.kt

+        val flattenedArgs = args.map {
+            if (it is AnyOfType) {
+                it.flatten().allTypes.filter { it !is NullType }
+            } else {
+                it.flatten().allTypes
+            }
+        }


What happens when the StaticType is AnyType? Would the following suffice?

Suggested change

val flattenedArgs = args.map {

if (it is AnyOfType) {

it.flatten().allTypes.filter { it !is NullType }

} else {

it.flatten().allTypes

}

}

val flattenedArgs = args.map { it.flatten().allTypes }.filter { it !is NullType }

Intuitively, if the input args is just a StaticType.NULL, then this will return an empty list, which might cause some trouble.

I will look into this.

…ensions.kt Co-authored-by: John Ed Quinn <[email protected]>

johnedquinn · 2024-02-27T23:59:23Z

partiql-eval/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/eval/internal/operator/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt

+                    // Input type is null
+                    // input type is the same as function parameter
+                    null -> {
+                        if (!(inputType == parameterType || inputType == PartiQLValueType.NULL || parameterType == PartiQLValueType.ANY)) {


We discussed this earlier today, but IMO the input, if null, should be coerced to a typed null ahead of time. We don't need the check for inputType == PartiQLValueType.NULL.

We could address the NULL aspect later, though.

johnedquinn · 2024-02-28T00:02:59Z

partiql-eval/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/eval/internal/operator/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt

+                        if (inputType != c.input) return false
+                        // checking the result is expected by the function signature
+                        // this should branch should never be reached, but leave it here for clarity
+                        if (c.target != parameterType) return false


I honestly think we can just delete this code path -- clarity or not. A comment should suffice.

And, if, for some reason this branch is hit and the types don't line up, we need to know about it. AKA we should let evaluation proceed so that we can actually retrieve the exception when the function is invoked with wrong types. We wouldn't want to silence our bugs.

partiql-eval/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/eval/internal/operator/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt

…r/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt

yliuuuu marked this pull request as ready for review February 13, 2024 21:51

rchowell suggested changes Feb 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

johnedquinn reviewed Feb 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

partiql-types/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/value/util/NumberExtensions.kt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

johnedquinn reviewed Feb 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

yliuuuu requested review from rchowell and johnedquinn February 20, 2024 19:22

yliuuuu and others added 6 commits February 26, 2024 16:11

fix comparator and substring func resolution

9b2104d

ktlint

4159f6e

cast match

2efa480

address comments

b840274

Update partiql-types/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/value/util/NumberExt…

ec1b6bf

…ensions.kt Co-authored-by: John Ed Quinn <[email protected]>

rebase clean up

7f0c978

yliuuuu force-pushed the partiql-eval-continue branch from dbf8b62 to 7f0c978 Compare February 27, 2024 00:14

johnedquinn requested changes Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

yliuuuu commented Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

partiql-eval/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/eval/internal/operator/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

yliuuuu requested a review from johnedquinn February 28, 2024 01:51

yliuuuu added 2 commits February 28, 2024 11:21

Update partiql-eval/src/main/kotlin/org/partiql/eval/internal/operato…

72df6b5

…r/rex/ExprCallDynamic.kt

Merge branch 'partiql-eval' into partiql-eval-continue

94936f1

johnedquinn approved these changes Mar 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

rchowell approved these changes Mar 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

yliuuuu merged commit 609f8b8 into partiql-eval Mar 13, 2024

yliuuuu deleted the partiql-eval-continue branch March 13, 2024 18:02

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Partiql eval continue #1370

Partiql eval continue #1370

Uh oh!

yliuuuu commented Feb 13, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Feb 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

rchowell Feb 15, 2024

Uh oh!

johnedquinn Feb 19, 2024

Uh oh!

yliuuuu Feb 19, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

johnedquinn Feb 19, 2024

Uh oh!

yliuuuu Feb 20, 2024

Uh oh!

johnedquinn Feb 21, 2024

Uh oh!

johnedquinn Feb 19, 2024

Uh oh!

yliuuuu Feb 20, 2024

Uh oh!

johnedquinn Feb 27, 2024

Uh oh!

johnedquinn Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Partiql eval continue #1370

Partiql eval continue #1370

Uh oh!

Conversation

yliuuuu commented Feb 13, 2024

Relevant Issues

Description

Other Information

License Information

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Conformance comparison report-Cross Engine

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-EVAL

Conformance comparison report-Cross Commit-LEGACY

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Feb 13, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Feb 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading