Skip to content
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

fix(sql-udf): correctly handle udf_binding_flag & udf_global_count #14906

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Feb 4, 2024

Conversation

xzhseh
Copy link
Contributor

@xzhseh xzhseh commented Jan 31, 2024

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

fixed a subtle but somewhat critical bug in the current sql udf implementation.

Checklist

  • I have written necessary rustdoc comments
  • I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
  • I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
  • I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
  • My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
  • All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
  • My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)
  • My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

  • My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

Just a note for docs to cover the named sql udf use case as demonstrated in the update test.

@xzhseh xzhseh self-assigned this Jan 31, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the type/fix Bug fix label Jan 31, 2024
@@ -204,7 +208,7 @@ pub async fn handle_create_sql_function(
}
}
Err(e) => return Err(ErrorCode::InvalidInputSyntax(format!(
"failed to conduct semantic check, please see if you are calling non-existence functions: {}",
"failed to conduct semantic check, please see if you are calling non-existence functions or parameters\ndetailed error message: {}",
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is just a current work around, I prefer a better hint display in the future, related: #14853.

Copy link
Contributor

@wangrunji0408 wangrunji0408 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

Comment on lines 255 to 257
if self.udf_context.global_count() == 0 {
self.unset_udf_binding_flag();
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like udf_binding_flag can be inferred by udf_global_counter != 0. Can we remove udf_binding_flag now?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think so, let me do a tiny refactor.

Copy link

gitguardian bot commented Feb 4, 2024

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secret in your pull request
GitGuardian id GitGuardian status Secret Commit Filename
9425213 Triggered Generic Password dc1b7c2 ci/scripts/regress-test.sh View secret
🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets
  1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
  2. Replace and store your secret safely. Learn here the best practices.
  3. Revoke and rotate this secret.
  4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider


🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.

Our GitHub checks need improvements? Share your feedbacks!

@xzhseh xzhseh added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 4, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 823382b Feb 4, 2024
25 of 27 checks passed
@xzhseh xzhseh deleted the xzhseh/fix-named-sql-udf-binding branch February 4, 2024 18:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/fix Bug fix
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants