-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
Port test in subqueries.rs from rust to sqllogictest #6675
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
Conversation
|
CI failed relate with #6676 |
| // "| 44 | |", | ||
| // "+-------+--------+", | ||
| // ]; | ||
| // assert_batches_eq!(expected, &results); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why was this test case commented out even though it's working correctly?
@mingmwang, if you have time, could you please help me understand,i'm working on move rs to sqllogicatest
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I remember this was because the infer nullablity has bug causing the physical plan schema check failed.
I will take a closer look tomorrow, maybe it was already fixed recently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it, it should have been fixed. I uncommented the code and everything is working fine.
|
@jiangzhx
In some cases the limit is removed and the subquery is de-correlated, in some cases it is not. Could you please add the comments back to the slt file ? |
No problem, I will check it tonight and rebase the commit. |
@mingmwang Following your suggestion, I have already made the changes. I hope you have time to help me review it again. thanks for your help. |
mingmwang
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
|
Thank you @jiangzhx and @mingmwang |
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #6668.
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?