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

[release-19.0] planner: support union statements with ctes (#15312) #15324

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 21, 2024

Conversation

vitess-bot[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot commented Feb 21, 2024

Description

This is a backport of #15312

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot requested a review from harshit-gangal as a code owner February 21, 2024 16:17
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added the Backport This is a backport label Feb 21, 2024
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot requested a review from systay as a code owner February 21, 2024 16:17
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot requested a review from frouioui as a code owner February 21, 2024 16:17
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added the Type: Bug label Feb 21, 2024
@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot requested a review from maxenglander February 21, 2024 16:17
Copy link
Contributor Author

vitess-bot bot commented Feb 21, 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.

@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Feb 21, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 21, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (b317589) 67.36% compared to head (19f0dcc) 67.35%.

Files Patch % Lines
go/vt/sqlparser/ast_format.go 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           release-19.0   #15324      +/-   ##
================================================
- Coverage         67.36%   67.35%   -0.01%     
================================================
  Files              1559     1559              
  Lines            192103   192105       +2     
================================================
- Hits             129402   129396       -6     
- Misses            62701    62709       +8     

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

@dbussink dbussink merged commit 278a377 into release-19.0 Feb 21, 2024
202 of 204 checks passed
@dbussink dbussink deleted the backport-15312-to-release-19.0 branch February 21, 2024 17:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant