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

ddl: refactor and add some unit tests for label rules #27715

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Sep 6, 2021
Merged

ddl: refactor and add some unit tests for label rules #27715

merged 7 commits into from
Sep 6, 2021

Conversation

rleungx
Copy link
Member

@rleungx rleungx commented Sep 1, 2021

What problem does this PR solve?

Problem Summary: Previously, the region label feature is lack of unit tests. This PR does tiny refactor and adds some basic unit tests for the region label.

What is changed and how it works?

What's Changed:

  • use a map for the return value of GetLabelRules
  • add truncate/rename table tests
  • add drop/truncate/exchange partition tests
  • add default keyword tests

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Release note 

None

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Sep 1, 2021 •
edited
Loading

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • Yisaer
  • xhebox

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 1, 2021
@rleungx
Copy link
Member Author

rleungx commented Sep 1, 2021

/cc @xhebox @disksing @Yisaer

@rleungx rleungx mentioned this pull request Sep 1, 2021
Merged
9 tasks
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 1, 2021
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Sep 1, 2021
xhebox
xhebox reviewed Sep 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@xhebox xhebox left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Clearly not all ocurrences of GetLabelRules are refactored.

domain/infosync/label_manager.go
}

type mockLabelManager struct {
sync.RWMutex
labelRules map[string]*label.Rule
labelRules map[string][]byte
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is no need to marshal/unmarshak, so you want a more real mock API?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we don't marshal/unmarshal it, we need to do type conversion explicitly.

ddl/attributes_sql_test.go Outdated
tk.MustExec(`alter table t1 partition p1 attributes="";`)
tk.MustExec(`alter table t1 partition p2 attributes="";`)
tk.MustExec(`alter table t1 partition p3 attributes="";`)
tk.MustExec("drop table if exists t1")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

drop table should drop attributes of partitions too, I think. We should not need to add alter table t1 partition p3 attributes="", if we added, something is wrong.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is because we need to trigger GC to delete the rules currently.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The reason why I do it is to prevent the influence among cases.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could also create a new store for every case, infoschema is binded to domain. BTW, I believe you could filter unexisted labels for information_schema.region_label to clear the result.

@rleungx rleungx requested a review from xhebox September 2, 2021 04:40
@disksing disksing removed their request for review September 2, 2021 05:26
xhebox
xhebox reviewed Sep 2, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@xhebox xhebox left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

onTruncateTablePartition should be refactored, too?

@rleungx
refactor and add some unit tests
520004a 
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <rleungx@gmail.com>
@rleungx
address comments
7a60ca1 
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <rleungx@gmail.com>
@rleungx
address comments
e3c5b42 
Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <rleungx@gmail.com>
@rleungx rleungx requested a review from xhebox September 3, 2021 03:00
@rleungx
Copy link
Member Author

rleungx commented Sep 3, 2021

/sig sql-infra

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the sig/sql-infra SIG: SQL Infra label Sep 3, 2021
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Sep 3, 2021
@xhebox
Copy link
Contributor

xhebox commented Sep 3, 2021

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: e3c5b42

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Sep 3, 2021
@rleungx
Copy link
Member Author

rleungx commented Sep 6, 2021

/run-check_dev_2

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@rleungx: Your PR was out of date, I have automatically updated it for you.

At the same time I will also trigger all tests for you:

/run-all-tests

If the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot merged commit e9038d0 into pingcap:master Sep 6, 2021
@jingshanglu jingshanglu mentioned this pull request Sep 6, 2021
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@xhebox xhebox xhebox approved these changes

@Yisaer Yisaer Yisaer approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/sql-infra SIG: SQL Infra size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@rleungx @ti-chi-bot @xhebox @Yisaer