fix: Correctly handle nested one to one joins #964
Merged
Conversation
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
It passes, but was untested
Todos are dangerous :)
AndrewSisley
added
bug
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #964 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 59.94% 59.95% +0.01%
===========================================
Files 157 157
Lines 17682 17687 +5
===========================================
+ Hits 10599 10604 +5
Misses 6129 6129
Partials 954 954
|
shahzadlone
pushed a commit
to shahzadlone/defradb
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2024
* Add test for one-one from secondary dir It passes, but was untested * Implement type join spans functions Todos are dangerous :)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Relevant issue(s)
Resolves #826
Description
Implements a couple of unimplemented
Spansfunctions in the type join nodes. They were preventing the spans from correctly propagating through the plan (I believe they were never set, and it was more a case that all records were being yielded and only the first being used, rather than an overwrite due to some shared state as the issue first looked like to me).