Uploaded image for project: 'Ignite'
  1. Ignite
  2. IGNITE-19997

Sql. Enhancing test coverage of type coercion

Attach filesAttach ScreenshotAdd voteVotersWatch issueWatchersCreate sub-taskLinkCloneUpdate Comment AuthorReplace String in CommentUpdate Comment VisibilityDelete Comments
    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Improvement
    • Status: Open
    • Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • None
    • None
    • sql

    Description

      Currently, we have neither an understanding of how type coercion impacts the system, nor decent test coverage. As a result, trying to fix one part causes the other to break (see IGNITE-19128 --> IGNITE-19615 --> IGNITE-19976).

      To improve the situation, let us perform the following steps:

      • first, it is necessary to cover the current behavior of planner with an exhaustive set of tests:. Here, we need to cover following cases
        • coercion for set operations like UNION, INTERSECT and EXCEPT
        • coercion for binary comparison and arithmetic
        • coercion for IN operator
        • coercion for CASE operator
        • coercion for function arguments
        • coercion of source for INSERT, UPDATE and MERGE operators
        • etc (did I miss something?)
      • then, we need to cover execution by the similar tests to make sure coercion and execution are aligned
      • finally, we should revise coercion rules to remove unnecessary casts

      Attachments

        Issue Links

        Activity

          This comment will be Viewable by All Users Viewable by All Users
          Cancel

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            korlov Konstantin Orlov

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:

              Slack

                Issue deployment