phoenix-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <...@apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] [phoenix] BinShi-SecularBird commented on a change in pull request #471: PHOENIX-5176 KeyRange.compareUpperRange(KeyRang 1, KeyRang 2) returns wrong result when two key ranges have the same upper bound values but one is inclusive and another is exclusive
Date Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:30:40 GMT
BinShi-SecularBird commented on a change in pull request #471: PHOENIX-5176 KeyRange.compareUpperRange(KeyRang
1, KeyRang 2) returns wrong result when two key ranges have the same upper bound values but
one is inclusive and another is exclusive
URL: https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/471#discussion_r267901019
 
 

 ##########
 File path: phoenix-core/src/test/java/org/apache/phoenix/query/KeyRangeMoreTest.java
 ##########
 @@ -192,64 +193,78 @@ public void testListIntersectForBoundary() throws Exception {
 
         listIntersectAndAssert(Arrays.asList(KeyRange.EMPTY_RANGE),Arrays.asList(KeyRange.EVERYTHING_RANGE),Arrays.asList(KeyRange.EMPTY_RANGE));
 
-        rowKeyRanges1=Arrays.asList(
-                PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(2),
-                            true,
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(5),
-                            true),
-                PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(8),
-                            true,
-                            KeyRange.UNBOUND,
-                            false));
-        rowKeyRanges2=Arrays.asList(
-                PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                        KeyRange.UNBOUND,
-                        false,
-                        PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(4),
-                        true),
-                PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                        PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(7),
-                        true,
-                        PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(10),
-                        true),
-                PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                    PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(13),
-                    true,
-                    PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(14),
-                    true),
-                PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                    PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(19),
-                    true,
-                    KeyRange.UNBOUND,
-                    false)
-                );
-        expected=Arrays.asList(
-                PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(2),
-                            true,
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(4),
-                            true),
-                    PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(8),
-                            true,
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(10),
-                            true),
-                    PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(13),
-                            true,
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(14),
-                            true),
-                    PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(
-                            PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(19),
-                            true,
-                            KeyRange.UNBOUND,
-                            false)
-                );
+        rowKeyRanges1 = CreateKeyRangeList(
+                Arrays.asList(2, 5, 8, Integer.MAX_VALUE),
+                Arrays.asList(true, true, true, false));
+        rowKeyRanges2 = CreateKeyRangeList(
+                Arrays.asList(Integer.MIN_VALUE, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 19, Integer.MAX_VALUE),
+                Arrays.asList(false, true, true, true, true, true, true, false));
+        expected = CreateKeyRangeList(
+                Arrays.asList(2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, Integer.MAX_VALUE),
+                Arrays.asList(true, true, true, true, true, true, true, false));
+        listIntersectAndAssert(rowKeyRanges1, rowKeyRanges2, expected);
+
+        rowKeyRanges1 = CreateKeyRangeList(
+                Arrays.asList(3, 5, 5, 6),
+                Arrays.asList(true, false, true, false));
+        rowKeyRanges2 = CreateKeyRangeList(
+                Arrays.asList(3, 5, 6, 7),
+                Arrays.asList(true, true, true, true));
+        expected = CreateKeyRangeList(
+                Arrays.asList(3, 5),
+                Arrays.asList(true, true));
         listIntersectAndAssert(rowKeyRanges1, rowKeyRanges2, expected);
     }
 
+    @Test
+    public void testKeyRangeCompareUpperRange() throws Exception {
+        List<KeyRange> rowKeyRanges1 = CreateKeyRangeListWithFixedLowerRange(
+                Arrays.asList(Integer.MAX_VALUE, Integer.MAX_VALUE, 10000, 1001, 1000, 1000,
1000, 1000),
+                Arrays.asList(false, false, true, true, true, true, false, true));
+        List<KeyRange> rowKeyRanges2 = CreateKeyRangeListWithFixedLowerRange(
+                Arrays.asList(Integer.MAX_VALUE, 10000, Integer.MAX_VALUE, 1000, 1001, 1000,
1000, 1000),
+                Arrays.asList(false, false, false, true, true, true, false, false));
+        List<Integer> expectedResults = Arrays.asList(0, 1, -1, 1, -1, 0, 0, 1);
+        assertEquals(rowKeyRanges1.size(), rowKeyRanges2.size());
+        assertEquals(rowKeyRanges1.size(), expectedResults.size());
+
+        for (int i = 0; i < expectedResults.size(); i++) {
+            int compareResult = KeyRange.compareUpperRange(rowKeyRanges1.get(i), rowKeyRanges2.get(i));
+            assertEquals(expectedResults.get(i).intValue(), compareResult);
+        }
+    }
+
+    private static List<KeyRange> CreateKeyRangeListWithFixedLowerRange(List<Integer>
keys, List<Boolean> boundaryConditions) {
+        assertEquals(keys.size(), boundaryConditions.size());
+        List<Integer> newKeys = Lists.newArrayListWithCapacity(keys.size() * 2);
+        List<Boolean> newBoundaryConditions = Lists.newArrayListWithCapacity(boundaryConditions.size()
* 2);
+
+        for (int i = 0; i < keys.size(); i++) {
+            newKeys.add(0);
+            newBoundaryConditions.add(true);
+            newKeys.add(keys.get(i));
+            newBoundaryConditions.add(boundaryConditions.get(i));
+        }
+
+        return CreateKeyRangeList(newKeys, newBoundaryConditions);
+    }
+
+    private static List<KeyRange> CreateKeyRangeList(List<Integer> keys, List<Boolean>
boundaryConditions) {
+        assertEquals(keys.size(), boundaryConditions.size());
+        assertTrue(keys.size() % 2 == 0);
+
+        int size = keys.size() / 2;
+        List<KeyRange> keyRangeList = Lists.newArrayListWithCapacity(size);
+
+        for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
+            byte[] startKey = keys.get(2*i).equals(Integer.MIN_VALUE) ? KeyRange.UNBOUND
: PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(keys.get(2*i));
+            byte[] endKey = keys.get(2*i + 1).equals(Integer.MAX_VALUE) ? KeyRange.UNBOUND
: PInteger.INSTANCE.toBytes(keys.get(2*i + 1));
+            keyRangeList.add(PInteger.INSTANCE.getKeyRange(startKey, boundaryConditions.get(2*i),
endKey, boundaryConditions.get(2*i+1)));
+        }
+
+        return keyRangeList;
+    }
+
     private static void listIntersectAndAssert(List<KeyRange> rowKeyRanges1,List<KeyRange>
rowKeyRanges2,List<KeyRange> expected) {
         for(int i=0;i<200;i++) {
 
 Review comment:
   The purpose of the original test author just want to randomly shuffle the ranges in list
for certain times and make sure the function can correct sort the given tow ranges and calculate
the intersection. I don't like this test code because once there is failure we don't know
what's the case which caused the failure, but I think improving this is out of scope of my
change due to the following two reasons:
   1. Using the ranges in ascending order is efficient for testing my fix to the original
problem.
   2. Reshuffle the ranges should be the unit test of KeyRange.coalesce(...) instead of KeyRange.intersect().

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Mime
View raw message