Skip to content

[fix](fe) Fix SHOW BACKENDS field order mismatch - #62207

Merged
HappenLee merged 3 commits into
apache:masterfrom
HappenLee:fix-backends-field-order
Apr 9, 2026
Merged

[fix](fe) Fix SHOW BACKENDS field order mismatch#62207
HappenLee merged 3 commits into
apache:masterfrom
HappenLee:fix-backends-field-order

Conversation

@HappenLee

@HappenLeeHappenLee commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Fix SHOW BACKENDS command output field order mismatch with BackendsTableValuedFunction.SCHEMA definition.

Problem

The output fields of SHOW BACKENDS command were not in the same order as the BackendsTableValuedFunction.SCHEMA definition, causing field values to be displayed in wrong columns:

  • CpuCores showed NodeRole value (mix)
  • Memory showed CpuCores value
  • NodeRole showed Memory value

Solution

  1. Reorder fields in BackendsProcDir.getBackendInfos() to match SCHEMA:
    • CpuCores -> Memory -> LiveSince -> RunningTasks -> NodeRole
  2. Synchronize the same fix in MetadataGenerator.backendsMetadataResult()
  3. Add unit test to verify field order

Test

  • Unit test added in BackendsProcDirTest.testBackendInfoFieldOrder()

@HappenLee
[fix](fe) Fix SHOW BACKENDS field order mismatch
d21be2b
The output fields of SHOW BACKENDS command were not in the same order as
the BackendsTableValuedFunction.SCHEMA definition, causing field values
to be displayed in wrong columns.
Issue:
- CpuCores showed NodeRole value (mix)
- Memory showed CpuCores value
- NodeRole showed Memory value
Fix:
- Reorder fields in BackendsProcDir.getBackendInfos() to match SCHEMA:
CpuCores -> Memory -> LiveSince -> RunningTasks -> NodeRole
- Synchronize the same fix in MetadataGenerator.backendsMetadataResult()
- Add unit test to verify field order
Test: Unit test added
@hello-stephen

hello-stephen commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@HappenLee

HappenLee commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

run buildall

@HappenLee

HappenLee commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

run buildall

@hello-stephen

hello-stephen commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (1/1) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@HappenLee

HappenLee commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

run buildall

@hello-stephen

hello-stephen commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (1/1) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

yiguolei
yiguolei previously approved these changes Apr 8, 2026
View reviewed changes
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Apr 8, 2026
@github-actions

github-actionsBot commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions

github-actionsBot commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@HappenLee
[test](fe) Fix wrong column index for NodeRole assertion in DemoMulti…
8f95f21
…BackendsTest
Issue Number: N/A
Problem Summary: After commit d21be2b which fixed SHOW BACKENDS field order
to match SCHEMA definition, the NodeRole column moved from index size-5 to
size-1 (last column). The test assertion still used the old wrong offset
size-5 (which now points to CpuCores returning "1"), causing the test to fail
with expected:<[mix]> but was:<[1]>.
None
- Test: Unit test fix - updated column index to match corrected field order
- Behavior changed: No
- Does this need documentation: No
@HappenLee
HappenLeeforce-pushed the fix-backends-field-order branch from 5af1967 to 8f95f21CompareApril 9, 2026 03:39
@HappenLee

HappenLee commented Apr 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

run buildall

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot removed the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Apr 9, 2026
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Apr 9, 2026
@github-actions

github-actionsBot commented Apr 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@HappenLee
HappenLee merged commit 2014238 into apache:masterApr 9, 2026
31 of 32 checks passed
github-actionsBot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2026
@HappenLeeYour Name
[fix](fe) Fix SHOW BACKENDS field order mismatch (#62207)
4c0e613
## Summary
Fix SHOW BACKENDS command output field order mismatch with
BackendsTableValuedFunction.SCHEMA definition.
## Problem
The output fields of SHOW BACKENDS command were not in the same order as
the BackendsTableValuedFunction.SCHEMA definition, causing field values
to be displayed in wrong columns:
- CpuCores showed NodeRole value (mix)
- Memory showed CpuCores value
- NodeRole showed Memory value
## Solution
1. Reorder fields in BackendsProcDir.getBackendInfos() to match SCHEMA:
- CpuCores -> Memory -> LiveSince -> RunningTasks -> NodeRole
2. Synchronize the same fix in
MetadataGenerator.backendsMetadataResult()
3. Add unit test to verify field order
## Test
- Unit test added in BackendsProcDirTest.testBackendInfoFieldOrder()
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2026
Merged
github-actionsBot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2026
@HappenLeeYour Name
[fix](fe) Fix SHOW BACKENDS field order mismatch (#62207)
ab46dc5
## Summary
Fix SHOW BACKENDS command output field order mismatch with
BackendsTableValuedFunction.SCHEMA definition.
## Problem
The output fields of SHOW BACKENDS command were not in the same order as
the BackendsTableValuedFunction.SCHEMA definition, causing field values
to be displayed in wrong columns:
- CpuCores showed NodeRole value (mix)
- Memory showed CpuCores value
- NodeRole showed Memory value
## Solution
1. Reorder fields in BackendsProcDir.getBackendInfos() to match SCHEMA:
- CpuCores -> Memory -> LiveSince -> RunningTasks -> NodeRole
2. Synchronize the same fix in
MetadataGenerator.backendsMetadataResult()
3. Add unit test to verify field order
## Test
- Unit test added in BackendsProcDirTest.testBackendInfoFieldOrder()
@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2026
Merged
yiguolei pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2026
@github-actions@HappenLee
branch-4.1: [fix](fe) Fix SHOW BACKENDS field order mismatch#62207(#…
6ef4cc4
…62284)
Cherry-picked from #62207
Co-authored-by: HappenLee <happenlee@selectdb.com>
@mymeiyimymeiyi mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2026
Merged
yiguolei pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 7, 2026
@github-actions@HappenLee
branch-4.0: [fix](fe) Fix SHOW BACKENDS field order mismatch#62207(#…
e353fb1
…62283)
Cherry-picked from #62207
Co-authored-by: HappenLee <happenlee@selectdb.com>
@boluorboluor mentioned this pull request May 17, 2026
Closed
@morningmanmorningman mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2026
Closed
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@yiguoleiyiguoleiyiguolei approved these changes
@MryangeMryangeMryange approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approvedIndicates a PR has been approved by one committer.dev/3.1.xdev/4.0.6-mergeddev/4.1.0-mergedreviewed

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@HappenLee@hello-stephen@yiguolei@Mryange