The GitHub Actions job "Required Checks" on texera.git/main has failed. Run started by GitHub user github-merge-queue[bot] (triggered by github-merge-queue[bot]).
Head commit for run: 3da5f49c0a3727b1b57756265e84a5957551c036 / Mrudhulraj <[email protected]> fix(query): Remove duplicated rows when datasets shared Publicly in the hub page (#6016) <!-- Thanks for sending a pull request (PR)! Here are some tips for you: 1. If this is your first time, please read our contributor guidelines: [Contributing to Texera](https://github.com/apache/texera/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) 2. Ensure you have added or run the appropriate tests for your PR 3. If the PR is work in progress, mark it a draft on GitHub. 4. Please write your PR title to summarize what this PR proposes, we are following Conventional Commits style for PR titles as well. 5. Be sure to keep the PR description updated to reflect all changes. --> ### What changes were proposed in this PR? #### Issue - Duplicate datasets on hub landing page / hub search Symptom: A user creates a dataset, makes it public, and grants another user explicit access. When the grantee browses the hub, the dataset appears twice in the search results. Root cause: DatasetSearchQueryBuilder.constructFromClause produced this SQL: path: ```amber\src\main\scala\org\apache\texera\web\resource\dashboard\DatasetSearchQueryBuilder.scala:72``` ```sql SELECT DISTINCT ... FROM dataset LEFT JOIN dataset_user_access ON dua.did = dataset.did LEFT JOIN "user" ON ... WHERE (dua.uid = <ME>) OR (dataset.is_public = true) ``` For a dataset that is both public AND explicitly shared with the user, the LEFT JOIN produces one row per matching dataset_user_access row and the OR makes both branches true. **This applies similarly to worflows too.** #### Fix 1 — DatasetSearchQueryBuilder.constructFromClause Move the UID filter from the WHERE clause into the JOIN's ON clause so each dataset produces at most one joined row, and force the JOIN to FALSE when uid == null so the SELECT still references a valid table. ```scala val baseJoin = DATASET .leftJoin(DATASET_USER_ACCESS) .on(DATASET_USER_ACCESS.DID.eq(DATASET.DID)) .**and**(if (uid == null) DSL.**falseCondition**() else DATASET_USER_ACCESS.UID.eq(uid)) .leftJoin(USER) .on(USER.UID.eq(DATASET.OWNER_UID)) val condition: Condition = if (uid == null) { DATASET.IS_PUBLIC.eq(true) } else if (includePublic) { DATASET.IS_PUBLIC.eq(true).or(DATASET_USER_ACCESS.UID.isNotNull) } else { DATASET_USER_ACCESS.UID.isNotNull } baseJoin.where(condition) ``` Why `AND` `FALSE` for `uid == null`? The `SELECT` references `DATASET_USER_ACCESS.PRIVILEGE`. Without `dataset_user_access` in the `FROM`, DB throws missing FROM-clause entry for table "dataset_user_access". `AND` `FALSE` keeps the table in the FROM while making the JOIN yield NULL access columns — which is the correct semantic for "no explicit grant". Behavior matrix: | uid | includePublic | Matched datasets | |----------|---------------|---------------------------------------------| | null | (n/a) | Public only | | not null | false | Datasets with explicit access of logged-in user only | | not null | true | Public + logged-in explicit access **(no duplicates)** | <!-- Please clarify what changes you are proposing. The purpose of this section is to outline the changes. Here are some tips for you: 1. If you propose a new API, clarify the use case for a new API. 2. If you fix a bug, you can clarify why it is a bug. 3. If it is a refactoring, clarify what has been changed. 3. It would be helpful to include a before-and-after comparison using screenshots or GIFs. 4. Please consider writing useful notes for better and faster reviews. --> ### Any related issues, documentation, discussions? Fixes #5957 <!-- Please use this section to link other resources if not mentioned already. 1. If this PR fixes an issue, please include `Fixes #1234`, `Resolves #1234` or `Closes #1234`. If it is only related, simply mention the issue number. 2. If there is design documentation, please add the link. 3. If there is a discussion in the mailing list, please add the link. --> ### How was this PR tested? Testing: 1. Created a new DatasetResourcespec for basic unit-testing. 2. Manual: Using database checks and UI workflow testing. Share dataset to user with READ/WRITE permissions + Publicly: <img width="682" height="795" alt="Share Permissions" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ad42ae50-0153-4aec-bb72-4b7b084f4c91"; /> Observation (before fix): Two datasets are listed for the shared user (User access permission + Public access (NONE)) <img width="1900" height="895" alt="testUser perspective" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/69ce507b-fdbc-4c87-99d0-e7fa907fbf39"; /> Result (after fix): 1 dataset of the user access permission <img width="1915" height="717" alt="testUser result 1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2fd0a06e-3e5e-4a9e-b550-0245619b42f8"; /> <!-- If tests were added, say they were added here. Or simply mention that if the PR is tested with existing test cases. Make sure to include/update test cases that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive cases if possible. If it was tested in a way different from regular unit tests, please clarify how you tested step by step, ideally copy and paste-able, so that other reviewers can test and check, and descendants can verify in the future. If tests were not added, please describe why they were not added and/or why it was difficult to add. --> ### Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? AI tools used for generating the spec files. <!-- If generative AI tooling has been used in the process of authoring this PR, please include the phrase: 'Generated-by: ' followed by the name of the tool and its version. If no, write 'No'. Please refer to the [ASF Generative Tooling Guidance](https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html) for details. --> Report URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/actions/runs/29888792848 With regards, GitHub Actions via GitBox
