Skip to content
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

pandora box surfacing #639

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

pandora box surfacing #639

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

chicco785
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed changes

@StWiemann found out that upgrade from 0.8.2 generate some issues. for some reason when inserting new data in a old table, instanceId column is not added, generating issues. (this could be actually due to some change in cratedb, we haven't handled properly)
this pr surface the issue in bc testing (at least it should). moreover, this pr, by fixing a configuration issue in the backward test script, also evidenced an issue with a PR just merged (#564):

  • while the pr forces new data passed with not service path to get assigned / as service path, old data with None service path are not updated. thus queries to check old data with the new logic, of course fail. (this the reason why some lines are now commented - otherwise the test would bomb before detecting the issue exposed above.

The pr is not yet a fix. It's just to reproduced in a controlled environment the issue.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to the project?
Put an x in the boxes that apply

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Maintenance (update of libraries or other dependences)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
  • I have signed the CLA
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have run all the existing tests locally (not just those related to my feature) and there are no errors
  • After the last push to the PR branch, I have run the lint script locally and there are no changes to the code base
  • I have updated the RELEASE NOTES
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Further comments

N/A

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 25, 2022

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️

@chicco785
Copy link
Contributor Author

chicco785 commented Feb 25, 2022

actually the change from dynamic to strict was introduced my me here:
57f721f

the reason why this is now an issue, is that instanceId it's not tracked in metadata, thus, we don't know if it is missing or not, when adding new data.

@c0c0n3
Copy link
Member

c0c0n3 commented Feb 28, 2022

@chicco785 cool, thanks for this! We should keep a lid on the box :-)

Let's merge this PR when we've got a fix for #638. Here's what I have in mind

  1. Fix QL 0.8.3 can't insert values into existing table. #638. This should include tests to check instanceid is handled correctly (metadata, etc.) but it can leave out backward compat tests.
  2. Rebase this PR on the fix. Tweak backward compat tests if needed. At this point the currently failing tests should pass.

Thoughts?

@chicco785
Copy link
Contributor Author

sure, this pr should be use as a base for the fix, since it reproduces the issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants