Update CESQL tck tests to match spec changes #1291
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Calum Murray <[email protected]>
| @@ -25,3 +25,4 @@ The `error` values could be any of the following: | |||
| * `cast`: Casting error | |||
| * `missingFunction`: Addressed a missing function | |||
| * `functionEvaluation`: Error while evaluating a function | |||
| * `missingAttribute`: Error due to a missing attribute | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you added a generic error message to the spec - should we test for that too? It might end up being more of an impl-specific error case. If it's too hard to put into this generic tck stuff then I'm ok with skipping it. Was just curious.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we could mention it in the README for completeness, but I can't think of any use cases where we would actually use it
| expression: -TRUE | ||
| result: -1 |
cesql/cesql_tck/negate_operator.yaml
Outdated
| result: 0 | ||
| error: cast | ||
| error: match |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does "match' mean here - I don't see it listed as a valid error? I expected "missingAttribute"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tbh I'm not sure how I ended up with match here...
You are totally correct, it should be missingAttribute
|
Just a few minor questions... otherwise LGTM |
* Add generic error to README * Fix match error -> missingAttribute error Signed-off-by: Calum Murray <[email protected]>
|
Approved on the 6/6 call |
With all of the CESQL spec changes recently, the spec needed some updates to reflect what had changed
Proposed Changes
ABSfunction overflow error