-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
[processor/routing] Fix statement not eval in order #34999
Open
Frapschen
wants to merge
7
commits into
open-telemetry:main
Choose a base branch
from
Frapschen:fix-router-random-statements
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b3d9211
fix statement eval not in order
Frapschen 92b6178
fix lint
Frapschen 6a62c1b
git rebase
Frapschen b34879e
update
Frapschen ab30438
add benchmark
Frapschen 72877ae
fix pipeline
Frapschen 00caceb
Merge branch 'main' into fix-router-random-statements
codeboten File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | ||
# Use this changelog template to create an entry for release notes. | ||
|
||
# One of 'breaking', 'deprecation', 'new_component', 'enhancement', 'bug_fix' | ||
change_type: bug_fix | ||
|
||
# The name of the component, or a single word describing the area of concern, (e.g. filelogreceiver) | ||
component: routingprocessor | ||
|
||
# A brief description of the change. Surround your text with quotes ("") if it needs to start with a backtick (`). | ||
note: Fix OTTL statement not eval in order | ||
|
||
# Mandatory: One or more tracking issues related to the change. You can use the PR number here if no issue exists. | ||
issues: [34860] | ||
|
||
# (Optional) One or more lines of additional information to render under the primary note. | ||
# These lines will be padded with 2 spaces and then inserted directly into the document. | ||
# Use pipe (|) for multiline entries. | ||
subtext: | ||
|
||
# If your change doesn't affect end users or the exported elements of any package, | ||
# you should instead start your pull request title with [chore] or use the "Skip Changelog" label. | ||
# Optional: The change log or logs in which this entry should be included. | ||
# e.g. '[user]' or '[user, api]' | ||
# Include 'user' if the change is relevant to end users. | ||
# Include 'api' if there is a change to a library API. | ||
# Default: '[user]' | ||
change_logs: [] |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be honest, I find this test a bit confusing: the first two conditions will never be true for different reasons and the third is only resulting in true if the deletion happens based on the value of the key used in the where clause.
The statements could be just simple route statements?
Or even better:
And in the main test code, have this attribute instead:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jpkrohling The test is designed to run 5 times, and I expected it to produce the same result each time. This is how expected statements work. If the statements are executed randomly (
map[string]routingItem[E, K]
), they can't yield consistent results.BWT, the statements is from the issue's description. It can demonstrate that statements are executed in order or randomly will affect the routing results. so I used it in the test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Running them 5 times is fine, my concern is about the readability of the test. While the statements on the issue description were enough to reproduce the problem, the tests should be easily understandable to our future selves without having to come back to this issue to get the full picture, IMO.