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.

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

mysql/datetime: Improve TIME parsing logic #15135

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 6, 2024

Conversation

dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

@dbussink dbussink commented Feb 5, 2024

In places inside the evalengine we need to know if a TIME instance was properly parsed, if a value could be extracted from input (but it wasn't entirely valid) or if there's enirely invalid input.

Before we only had one flag that indicated the strict parsing. So we couldn't really discern partial parsing success from entire failure. We tried that with checking for a zero time, but that's wrong. A zero time is still an entirely valid time and can be the result of successful partial parsing.

Related Issue(s)

This was identified in #15124, but the fix there didn't look like it was the right approach with yet another flag for allowing a zero time. This since we shouldn't really treat a zero time as special anyway.

Part of #15077

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Feb 5, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Feb 5, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Feb 5, 2024
@dbussink dbussink added Type: Bug Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Feb 5, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 5, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (2c7b647) 70.62% compared to head (92f8b88) 70.65%.

Files Patch % Lines
go/mysql/datetime/parse.go 93.75% 3 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/sqlparser/literal.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15135      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.62%   70.65%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1376     1376              
  Lines      182418   182454      +36     
==========================================
+ Hits       128828   128919      +91     
+ Misses      53590    53535      -55     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Collaborator

@vmg vmg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I love this approach

go/mysql/datetime/parse.go Show resolved Hide resolved
In places inside the `evalengine` we need to know if a `TIME` instance
was properly parsed, if a value could be extracted from input (but it
wasn't entirely valid) or if there's enirely invalid input.

Before we only had one flag that indicated the strict parsing. So we
couldn't really discern partial parsing success from entire failure. We
tried that with checking for a zero time, but that's wrong. A zero time
is still an entirely valid time and can be the result of successful
partial parsing.

Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <[email protected]>
if i > math.MaxUint32 {
return "", false
}
if i < -math.MaxUint32 {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i < -math.MaxUint32 is no longer needed to check?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@systay I realized it's a useless check, since when we get here we already consumed any - at the beginning. So it can never be negative here, so hence the change to parse it as uint and drop this bit.

@vmg vmg merged commit 45070de into vitessio:main Feb 6, 2024
102 checks passed
@dbussink dbussink deleted the fix-time-parsing branch February 6, 2024 09:11
@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Contributor

This is in the v19.0.0 milestone, but was merged to 20.x. Will this be backported?

@vmg vmg added the Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 label Feb 6, 2024
@vmg
Copy link
Collaborator

vmg commented Feb 6, 2024

@GrahamCampbell sure thing!

frouioui pushed a commit to planetscale/vitess that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Backport to: release-19.0 Needs to be back ported to release-19.0 Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants