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

[release-21.0] evalengine: normalize types during compilation (#17887) #17896

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 4, 2025

Conversation

vitess-bot[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot commented Mar 3, 2025

Description

This is a backport of #17887

Signed-off-by: Vicent Marti <vmg@strn.cat>
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <andres@planetscale.com>
Co-authored-by: Vicent Marti <vmg@strn.cat>
Copy link
Contributor Author

vitess-bot bot commented Mar 3, 2025

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot requested a review from dbussink March 3, 2025 20:20
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.4 milestone Mar 3, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 3, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 40.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.52%. Comparing base (913c838) to head (beaf359).
Report is 1 commits behind head on release-21.0.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/expr_bvar.go 40.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           release-21.0   #17896      +/-   ##
================================================
- Coverage         67.52%   67.52%   -0.01%     
================================================
  Files              1572     1572              
  Lines            252012   252017       +5     
================================================
- Hits             170173   170162      -11     
- Misses            81839    81855      +16     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@systay systay merged commit 3be3736 into release-21.0 Mar 4, 2025
200 checks passed
@systay systay deleted the backport-17887-to-release-21.0 branch March 4, 2025 07:03
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.

2 participants