-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
DM-45489: Add more test cover for RemoteButler queries #1042
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
27e5d80
Fix missing queryDataIds argument validation
dhirving 5337185
Tweak test for RemoteButler behavior
dhirving 2624869
Provide better error message for missing dimension
dhirving 56cdc0c
Update query tests for new query system diagnostics
dhirving 5a406b3
Update test for minor query system differences
dhirving 66e3efc
Add test cover for RemoteButler query exceptions
dhirving File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
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
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.
In the new query system this is returning zero rows, which I don't think is right.. it should probably be returning the data IDs for all the bias datasets instead?
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 the the behavior is correct, and the comment above this test is wrong: I don't see anything that inserts
exposure
dimension records, so the query is going to return no rows because it's got a join to that empty table. Note that the dimensions ofbias
are just{instrument, detector}
; the match toexposure
is going to be a temporal join between the CALIBRATION collection's validity range andexposure.timespan
.So I suspect there's supposed to be an
exposure
record inserted with a timespan that overlaps the validity range of exactly onebias
for or or twodetector
s in this test, as that'd make the test much more interesting for the new system (and it wouldn't affect the behavior of the old query system, which is probably why it wasn't done). And if we do that the new query system should return rows for that exposure and whatever detectors have a bias with the matching timespan. But it's quite possible that behavior is already covered in other tests of the new query system and hence there's no need to re-check it here.Note that we don't really care about the case where the exposure's timespan overlaps the validity ranges of multiple biases; this query might still be sound, but it'd make any find-first search for the
bias
fail, and hence it represents a practically useless validity range.