Closed bowenxia closed 4 days ago
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 72.72%. Comparing base (
0b46176
) to head (71af3ac
).:exclamation: Current head 71af3ac differs from pull request most recent head 46d3ac5
Please upload reports for the commit 46d3ac5 to get more accurate results.
Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
service/matching/tasklist/matcher.go | 1 | 90.55% | ||
common/task/weighted_round_robin_task_scheduler.go | 2 | 89.05% | ||
common/peerprovider/ringpopprovider/config.go | 2 | 81.58% | ||
common/util.go | 2 | 91.84% | ||
service/history/task/task.go | 3 | 84.81% | ||
common/persistence/nosql/nosql_task_store.go | 3 | 85.52% | ||
service/history/handler/handler.go | 3 | 96.2% | ||
service/history/task/timer_standby_task_executor.go | 3 | 85.63% | ||
service/history/task/fetcher.go | 3 | 85.57% | ||
service/history/task/transfer_standby_task_executor.go | 6 | 86.33% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 34 | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 0190508e-3f7e-4c0d-b546-4eaa2a2045f1: | 0.01% |
Covered Lines: | 107119 |
Relevant Lines: | 149706 |
Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
common/task/weighted_round_robin_task_scheduler.go | 2 | 89.05% | ||
service/matching/tasklist/db.go | 2 | 73.23% | ||
common/util.go | 2 | 91.84% | ||
common/log/tag/tags.go | 3 | 50.46% | ||
common/persistence/nosql/nosql_task_store.go | 3 | 85.52% | ||
service/history/task/timer_standby_task_executor.go | 3 | 85.63% | ||
common/task/fifo_task_scheduler.go | 4 | 83.51% | ||
service/history/task/transfer_standby_task_executor.go | 6 | 86.94% | ||
service/matching/tasklist/task_reader.go | 9 | 75.33% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 34 | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 0190508e-3f7e-4c0d-b546-4eaa2a2045f1: | 0.004% |
Covered Lines: | 107110 |
Relevant Lines: | 149706 |
What changed? Added
IN
Clause handling for json indexed col (Attr) And unit test with 100% coverage of the new function.Why? One customer complained that they had error when using
IN
Clause after we migrated their domain to Pinot. Because previously ES supported that. Pinot DOES supported this for all other system keys; but in a json indexed col likeATTR
(we stored this column in a json format), we need to handleIN
clause in a different way.Sample query: if we input:
BinaryChecksums IN ("uDeploy:e6b658fc4ae98445a356d2218316081f7113fcdf")
It would be processed to:and JSON_MATCH(Attr, '"$.BinaryChecksums" IN (''uDeploy:e6b658fc4ae98445a356d2218316081f7113fcdf'')') or JSON_MATCH(Attr, '"$.BinaryChecksums[*]" IN (''uDeploy:e6b658fc4ae98445a356d2218316081f7113fcdf'')')
How did you test it? unit test
Potential risks
Release notes
Documentation Changes