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

schemadiff: consistent key ordering in table diff #17141

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

Description

When diffing tables, produce DROP KEY statements in consistent order, and compatible with the order of keys defined in the original table.

I've done an exhaustive search to validate this is the only indeterministic output in a table diff.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #17140

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Nov 5, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Nov 5, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Nov 5, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Nov 5, 2024
@@ -280,8 +280,8 @@ func (d *SchemaDiff) UnorderedDiffs() []EntityDiff {
return d.diffs
}

// AllDependenciess returns all known dependencies
func (d *SchemaDiff) AllDependenciess() (deps []*DiffDependency) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just typo fix

Comment on lines +1714 to +1717
for _, t1Key := range t1Keys {
if stmt, ok := dropKeyStatements[t1Key.Info.Name.String()]; ok {
alterTable.AlterOptions = append(alterTable.AlterOptions, stmt)
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Consistent ordering iteration

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 5, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.44%. Comparing base (9ed8ee2) to head (2a8ff4e).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #17141   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.44%   67.44%           
=======================================
  Files        1569     1569           
  Lines      252119   252120    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits       170038   170043    +5     
+ Misses      82081    82077    -4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit a9bab82 into vitessio:main Nov 5, 2024
103 of 110 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the schemadiff-deterministic-tablediff-ordering branch November 5, 2024 12:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: schema management schemadiff and schema changes Type: Bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: schemadiff: inconsistent DROP KEY ordering in table diff
3 participants