test: add more storage integration tests#1608
Conversation
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
ti-chi-bot
Bot
added
release-note
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @wk989898, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request primarily focuses on enhancing the robustness of the storage component by adding a substantial number of new integration tests and re-organizing existing ones within the run_heavy_it_in_ci.sh script. The aim is to provide more comprehensive coverage for various storage-related operations, particularly around CSV data handling, complex DDL scenarios, and failover mechanisms.
Highlights
- Expanded Storage Test Coverage: I've significantly expanded the integration test suite for storage functionalities by adding numerous new test cases. These include new tests for CSV storage updates, various DDL operations (such as table splitting, merging, and random moves), and additional failover and merge table scenarios.
- Test Re-categorization: I've re-categorized the
canal_json_storage_basicandcanal_json_storage_partition_tabletests. They are now exclusively run within thestorage_groupsand have been removed from thepulsar_groups, streamlining their execution context. - Minor Test Group Reordering: I've made a minor reordering of existing tests within
storage_groupsG00 for better consistency.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request adds several new integration tests to the storage_groups in the heavy integration test suite. It also cleans up the pulsar_groups by removing two storage-specific tests. The changes align with the goal of expanding storage test coverage.
I've identified a couple of minor style issues regarding the alphabetical sorting of test cases within groups, which would improve consistency and maintainability.
| # G05 | ||
| # 'move_table drop_many_tables' | ||
| 'drop_many_tables' | ||
| 'move_table drop_many_tables' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency and better maintainability, it's good practice to keep the test cases within each group sorted alphabetically. I noticed that group G00 was sorted in this PR, which suggests this is the desired convention. This group should also be sorted alphabetically.
| 'move_table drop_many_tables' | |
| 'drop_many_tables move_table' |
| 'cdc default_value' | ||
| # G07 | ||
| 'resolve_lock force_replicate_table' | ||
| 'merge_table resolve_lock force_replicate_table' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency and better maintainability, it's good practice to keep the test cases within each group sorted alphabetically. I noticed that group G00 was sorted in this PR, which suggests this is the desired convention. This group should also be sorted alphabetically.
| 'merge_table resolve_lock force_replicate_table' | |
| 'force_replicate_table merge_table resolve_lock' |
ti-chi-bot
Bot
added
size/M
ti-chi-bot
Bot
added
release-note-none
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: 3AceShowHand The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
[LGTM Timeline notifier]Timeline:
|
|
/retest-required |
2 similar comments
|
/retest-required |
|
/retest-required |
|
/retest-required |
|
/retest-required |
2 participants
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: ref #442 close #1448
What is changed and how it works?
Keep the same as the old arch, TiDBOnly DDL event should also replicate the downstream.
Check List
Tests
Questions
Will it cause performance regression or break compatibility?
Do you need to update user documentation, design documentation or monitoring documentation?
Release note