----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61992/#review184347 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! Ship It! - Sushil Mohanty On Aug. 30, 2017, 2:52 p.m., Rajat Khandelwal wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/61992/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 30, 2017, 2:52 p.m.) > > > Review request for lens. > > > Bugs: LENS-1468 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LENS-1468 > > > Repository: lens > > > Description > ------- > > The issue is not seen in test cases yet since somehow the order of child > candidates in {{JoinCandidate}} has been fixed. We have observed the order > being non-deterministic in production. And in one ordering, having clause > works fine and in another it doesn't. Will be adding test cases to reproduce > this issue and the fix as well. > > > Diffs > ----- > > lens-cube/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/cube/parse/ExpressionResolver.java > 8906fae1915e71a38e18f42145825afcfe1a1d0b > > lens-cube/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/cube/parse/StorageCandidateHQLContext.java > 993aa4cbf26d4771bbe714c95abc471534802780 > lens-cube/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/cube/parse/UnionQueryWriter.java > 9dc7ee67deb7495f99b53b01839722fb42446d03 > lens-cube/src/test/java/org/apache/lens/cube/parse/TestBaseCubeQueries.java > cf29dff9058aa98bccff9d986fb3756438b50b83 > lens-cube/src/test/resources/schema/cubes/base/basecube.xml > 6bb5eb9c0cefbec3bf85bf245a3d25b9b4c67b6e > lens-cube/src/test/resources/schema/cubes/derived/der2.xml > 337e7f450f96a3b1459556655680388ae2445f25 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61992/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > This is the output of the newly added test case after reverting code fixes: > > ``` > java.lang.AssertionError: having1: HAVING (((sum((basecube.alias1)) + > sum((basecube.alias3)) + sum((basecube.alias4))) > 0) and > ((floor(sum((basecube.alias1))) + 0) > 10)) > having2: HAVING (((sum((basecube.alias1)) + sum((basecube.alias1)) + > sum((basecube.alias1))) > 0) and ((floor(sum((basecube.alias5))) + 0) > 10)) > expected [HAVING (((sum((basecube.alias1)) + sum((basecube.alias1)) + > sum((basecube.alias1))) > 0) and ((floor(sum((basecube.alias5))) + 0) > 10))] > but found [HAVING (((sum((basecube.alias1)) + sum((basecube.alias3)) + > sum((basecube.alias4))) > 0) and ((floor(sum((basecube.alias1))) + 0) > 10))] > Expected :HAVING (((sum((basecube.alias1)) + sum((basecube.alias1)) + > sum((basecube.alias1))) > 0) and ((floor(sum((basecube.alias5))) + 0) > 10)) > Actual :HAVING (((sum((basecube.alias1)) + sum((basecube.alias3)) + > sum((basecube.alias4))) > 0) and ((floor(sum((basecube.alias1))) + 0) > 10)) > > ``` > > > Thanks, > > Rajat Khandelwal > >
