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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[refactor](metrics) Complete metrics for some operators #42992

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 31, 2024
Merged

[refactor](metrics) Complete metrics for some operators #42992

merged 4 commits into from
Oct 31, 2024

Conversation

Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed changes

Issue Number: close #xxx

@doris-robot
Copy link

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR

Since 2024-03-18, the Document has been moved to doris-website.
See Doris Document.

@Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

1 similar comment
@Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

1 similar comment
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

BiteTheDDDDt
BiteTheDDDDt previously approved these changes Oct 31, 2024
View reviewed changes
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions github-actions bot added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. reviewed labels Oct 31, 2024
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Oct 31, 2024
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@doris-robot
Copy link

TeamCity be ut coverage result:
Function Coverage: 37.81% (9816/25959)
Line Coverage: 29.01% (81574/281152)
Region Coverage: 28.28% (42120/148931)
Branch Coverage: 24.86% (21375/85980)
Coverage Report: http://coverage.selectdb-in.cc/coverage/e9becd6762895caaede5050dcb264133434b5e39_e9becd6762895caaede5050dcb264133434b5e39/report/index.html

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Oct 31, 2024
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@Gabriel39 Gabriel39 merged commit 9ed4834 into apache:master Oct 31, 2024
26 of 28 checks passed
Gabriel39 added a commit to Gabriel39/incubator-doris that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2024
@Gabriel39
[refactor](metrics) Complete metrics for some operators (apache#42992)
37547aa
Gabriel39 added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2024
@Gabriel39
[branch-3.0](pick) pick #42857 #42898 #42909 #42992 #43002 (#43039)
2abe20b 
### What problem does this PR solve?
<!--
You need to clearly describe your PR in this part:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting
information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what
is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there
be.
3. What features were added. Why this function was added.
4. Which codes were refactored and why this part of the code was
refactored.
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and
after the optimization.

The description of the PR needs to enable reviewers to quickly and
clearly understand the logic of the code modification.
-->

<!--
If there are related issues, please fill in the issue number.
- If you want the issue to be closed after the PR is merged, please use
"close #12345". Otherwise, use "ref #12345"
-->
Issue Number: close #xxx

<!--
If this PR is followup a preivous PR, for example, fix the bug that
introduced by a related PR,
link the PR here
-->
Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

### Check List (For Committer)

- Test <!-- At least one of them must be included. -->

    - [ ] Regression test
    - [ ] Unit Test
    - [ ] Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    - [ ] No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
- [ ] This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
        - [ ] Previous test can cover this change.
        - [ ] No colde files have been changed.
        - [ ] Other reason <!-- Add your reason?  -->

- Behavior changed:

    - [x] No.
    - [ ] Yes. <!-- Explain the behavior change -->

- Does this need documentation?

    - [x] No.
- [ ] Yes. <!-- Add document PR link here. eg:
apache/doris-website#1214 -->

- Release note

    <!-- bugfix, feat, behavior changed need a release note -->
    <!-- Add one line release note for this PR. -->
    None

### Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

- [ ] Confirm the release note
- [ ] Confirm test cases
- [ ] Confirm document
- [ ] Add branch pick label <!-- Add branch pick label that this PR
should merge into -->
@0xderek
Copy link

0xderek commented Nov 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Hi,

I am working on a patch to fix #42406. Initially I came across the issue on Doris 2.1.6 so I based my work on branch-2.1. I added some tests in be/test/vec/data_types/serde/data_type_serde_arrow_test.cpp but I can't find the file on master branch.

It turns out the file was removed in this pull request. It seems odd to me as the test file is irrelevant to this pr. Is there a particular reason to remove it?

Thanks.

@Gabriel39
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi,

I am working on a patch to fix #42406. Initially I came across the issue on Doris 2.1.6 so I based my work on branch-2.1. I added some tests in be/test/vec/data_types/serde/data_type_serde_arrow_test.cpp but I can't find the file on master branch.

It turns out the file was removed in this pull request. It seems odd to me as the test file is irrelevant to this pr. Is there a particular reason to remove it?

Thanks.

Hi @0xderek , sorry for this late reply.

I removed this file because I found a function convert_to_arrow_schema which is never unused is tested multiple times by this test file. In this PR, I deleted this unused function and also removed this file. And after discussing with @xinyiZzz , we think this file needs to be refactored to do some necessary tests. This job is expected to be done in this month.

@0xderek
Copy link

0xderek commented Dec 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Hi,
I am working on a patch to fix #42406. Initially I came across the issue on Doris 2.1.6 so I based my work on branch-2.1. I added some tests in be/test/vec/data_types/serde/data_type_serde_arrow_test.cpp but I can't find the file on master branch.
It turns out the file was removed in this pull request. It seems odd to me as the test file is irrelevant to this pr. Is there a particular reason to remove it?
Thanks.

Hi @0xderek , sorry for this late reply.

I removed this file because I found a function convert_to_arrow_schema which is never unused is tested multiple times by this test file. In this PR, I deleted this unused function and also removed this file. And after discussing with @xinyiZzz , we think this file needs to be refactored to do some necessary tests. This job is expected to be done in this month.

Hi @Gabriel39

Glad to hear from you.

I think the function convert_to_arrow_schema was used as a utility function in tests. It helps to construct arrow structures from doris row descriptors. The arrow structures are later used to test serialization and deserialization of data in arrow format. If the situation of the function not being used is really an issue for you, moving it to a test file (for example serde_utils.h) seems like a better option.

The reason I care so much about the test is that I have a use case which heavily depends on stream loading in arrow format. Without this test file, serialization / deserialization for data in arrow format was left completely untested. Not to mention the coverage was rather low in the first place.

With that being said, I am glad to know that test refactoring is in progress. Thank you for your effort.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@BiteTheDDDDt BiteTheDDDDt BiteTheDDDDt approved these changes

@Mryange Mryange Mryange approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. dev/3.0.3-merged reviewed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@Gabriel39 @doris-robot @0xderek @BiteTheDDDDt @Mryange