Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260

Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom
rhou1:orderby
Open

Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom
rhou1:orderby

Conversation

@rhou1

@rhou1rhou1 commented Feb 13, 2017•
edited by agirish
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.

Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.

Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.

@rhou1

rhou1 commented Feb 13, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Chun,

Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.

Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish

agirish commented Feb 14, 2017•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.

-1 for now. Let's discuss more.

@rhou1

rhou1 commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.

Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?

Sure, let's discuss more.

@agirish

agirish commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.

@rhou1

rhou1 commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.

Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.

Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.

@agirish

agirish commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.

@agirishagirish changed the title Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738

cchang738 commented Mar 24, 2017•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?

@agirish

agirish commented Mar 24, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.

agirish
agirish suggested changes Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes

@agirishagirish left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738
1 more reviewer
@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

enhancement

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260
Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Open
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Conversation
@rhou1
@rhou1rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017•

edited by agirish

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently

failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Chun,
Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.
Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.
-1 for now. Let's discuss more.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?
Sure, let's discuss more.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.
Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.
Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.
@agirishagirish
changed the title
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738
cchang738
commented
Mar 24, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?
@agirish
agirish
commented
Mar 24, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.
agirish
agirish
suggested changes
Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
@agirishagirish
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738

1 more reviewer

@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

enhancement

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260
Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Open
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Conversation
@rhou1
@rhou1rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017•

edited by agirish

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently

failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Chun,
Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.
Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.
-1 for now. Let's discuss more.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?
Sure, let's discuss more.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.
Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.
Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.
@agirishagirish
changed the title
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738
cchang738
commented
Mar 24, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?
@agirish
agirish
commented
Mar 24, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.
agirish
agirish
suggested changes
Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
@agirishagirish
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738

1 more reviewer

@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

enhancement

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260
Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Open
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Conversation
@rhou1
@rhou1rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017•

edited by agirish

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently

failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Chun,
Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.
Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.
-1 for now. Let's discuss more.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?
Sure, let's discuss more.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.
Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.
Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.
@agirishagirish
changed the title
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738
cchang738
commented
Mar 24, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?
@agirish
agirish
commented
Mar 24, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.
agirish
agirish
suggested changes
Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
@agirishagirish
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738

1 more reviewer

@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

enhancement

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260
Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Open
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Conversation
@rhou1
@rhou1rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017•

edited by agirish

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently

failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Chun,
Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.
Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.
-1 for now. Let's discuss more.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?
Sure, let's discuss more.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.
Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.
Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.
@agirishagirish
changed the title
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738
cchang738
commented
Mar 24, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?
@agirish
agirish
commented
Mar 24, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.
agirish
agirish
suggested changes
Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
@agirishagirish
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738

1 more reviewer

@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

enhancement

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260
Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Open
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Conversation
@rhou1
@rhou1rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017•

edited by agirish

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently

failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Chun,
Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.
Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.
-1 for now. Let's discuss more.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?
Sure, let's discuss more.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.
Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.
Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.
@agirishagirish
changed the title
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738
cchang738
commented
Mar 24, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?
@agirish
agirish
commented
Mar 24, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.
agirish
agirish
suggested changes
Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
@agirishagirish
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738

1 more reviewer

@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

enhancement

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260
Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Open
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Conversation
@rhou1
@rhou1rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017•

edited by agirish

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently

failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Chun,
Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.
Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.
-1 for now. Let's discuss more.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?
Sure, let's discuss more.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.
Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.
Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.
@agirishagirish
changed the title
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738
cchang738
commented
Mar 24, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?
@agirish
agirish
commented
Mar 24, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.
agirish
agirish
suggested changes
Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
@agirishagirish
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738

1 more reviewer

@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

enhancement

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE' - #260
Open
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Open
Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'#260
rhou1 wants to merge 1 commit into
mapr:masterfrom 
rhou1:orderby
Conversation
@rhou1
@rhou1rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017•

edited by agirish

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Which occurs if a SQL statement has an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently

failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 13, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Chun,
Can you review these changes? These changes introduce a new failure type for statements with order-by clauses. Current tests that fail have been grandfathered. New tests that fail will be flagged.
Robert Hou
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…
f731540
…ement has
an order-by clause that cannot be validated by the Test Framework. Please see
the README.md file for information on how to construct a SQL statement with an
order-by clause that can be validated by the Test Framework.
Added a new verification method, "text", which checks if the actual output
and expected output are exactly the same, byte by byte. It verifies content
as well as order. Every row that is returned must be returned in the same
order as in the expected output.
Added a whitelist file for orderby tests. Tests that are listed in this file
are SQL statements with an order-by clause. The order-by clause cannot be
validated. Instead of marking these tests as failed, they are PASSED until
they can be fixed in the future. There are 302 tests that are currently
failing at the time of this commit. They will need to be fixed at some
piont in the future.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm not sure if that's the right approach, Robert. If we don't do this now - it's likely that this will never happen - we have many such instances which are still pending today. It's better we wait to get the fix in until all tests are modified.
-1 for now. Let's discuss more.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If we don't exposed orderby failures now, then when we add new orderby tests, we cannot determine if the orderby is working or not. I'm not sure if this is a good idea.
Are there other cases where we think tests are passing, and they are actually failing?
Sure, let's discuss more.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
No, I do think we should be fixing this. All I'm saying is that lets not defer updating dependent tests. In my opinion, lets fix the tests you identified first (if a change to baseline is required) and then get your fix in.
@rhou1
rhou1
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Okay, sorry, I mis-understood.
Ideally, I would like to see all the tests fixed. I don't know how long that will take. This isn't a priority, and I still have 1.10 work to do, so I'm not spending much time on this at the moment. This is my last planned fix for the time being, until I get my 1.10 work done. I am just trying to get this issue to the point where it is stable, meaning it doesn't get any worse.
Anyway, I'm fine with not putting this in for now. At least we are aware of the issue.
@agirish
agirish
commented
Feb 14, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Sure. Let's discuss this in person next week when I'm back.
@agirishagirish
changed the title
Added a new failure type, ORDERBY_FAILURE, which occurs if a SQL stat…Added a new failure type 'ORDERBY_FAILURE'Mar 24, 2017
@cchang738
cchang738
commented
Mar 24, 2017•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@agirish I think I discussed this with @rhou1 in person and provided my suggestion to him a while back. @rhou1 said he wanted to wait until @agirish is back to have a discussion. Have you guys discussed?
@agirish
agirish
commented
Mar 24, 2017

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@cchang738, the discussion is still pending. Both Robert and I are busy with other tasks, so we'll look into this in a few weeks. Hopefully sooner.
agirish
agirish
suggested changes
Mar 24, 2017
View reviewed changes
@agirishagirish
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussion pending
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cchang738cchang738Awaiting requested review from cchang738

1 more reviewer

@agirishagirishagirish requested changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

enhancement

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rhou1@agirish@cchang738