[coverage] Conformance findings: CLOUDFETCH-019
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 4/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 3-5 días
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 52/100
Línea de trabajo
Comienza con la prueba fallida test_invalid_client_side_cloudfetch_knob_value_does_not_fail_session_open en el diff del PR de cobertura bajo tests/ y, a continuación, rastrea el manejo de las opciones Thrift de CloudFetch del controlador de Python. Reproduce los valores no positivos y demasiado grandes, y verifica que la consulta se realice correctamente con al menos una fila, que la configuración no válida esté ausente de OpenSession y que CloudFetch siga descargando datos.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Summary
Surfaced by the multi-language coverage fan-out while conformance-testing these SPEC-IDs against databricks/databricks-sql-python. Each finding is committed as an expected-failure (xfail) test in the coverage PR — the test asserts the CORRECT (post-fix) behavior and stays red until THIS driver (databricks/databricks-sql-python) is fixed, then flips green as a tripwire.
Findings
- CLOUDFETCH-019 [thrift]: Thrift backend forwards a non-positive
max_download_threadsunvalidated to ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=0), so the first CloudFetch-sized query raisesValueError: max_workers must be greater than 0instead of warning and degrading to the driver default of 10- failing test:
test_invalid_client_side_cloudfetch_knob_value_does_not_fail_session_open(see the coverage PR diff undertests/)
- failing test:
- CLOUDFETCH-019: Thrift backend forwards a non-positive
max_download_threadsunvalidated to ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=0), so the first CloudFetch-sized query raisesValueError: max_workers must be greater than 0instead of warning and degrading to the default of 10 — a cosmetic client-side tuning typo breaks querying outright
Reproduce & Expected
CLOUDFETCH-019 — A bad value for a client-side CloudFetch tuning knob must degrade to the driver default, never fail the connection.
Reproduce:
- Same knob as CLOUDFETCH-018 (this driver's client-side CloudFetch knob), set
to a value that is not a positive integer — e.g.
adbc.databricks.cloudfetch.max_chunks_in_memory = "not-a-number". Use "0" or
"-1" where the driver's option surface is typed and cannot carry a
non-numeric string. - The same knob set far above any plausible ceiling — e.g. "100000" (the
reference kernel clamps at 256).
Expected (per the shared spec):
- completes without an exception
- result has at least 1 row(s)
- completes without an exception
- result has at least 1 row(s)
- [thrift]
OpenSessionrequestconfiguration.cloudfetch_max_chunks_in_memoryis absent - [sea]
CreateSessionrequestsession_confs.cloudfetch_max_chunks_in_memoryis absent - full assertion contract:
result:
- label: not_a_positive_integer
no_exception: true
- label: not_a_positive_integer
row_count_min: 1
- label: above_maximum
no_exception: true
- label: above_maximum
row_count_min: 1
protocol:
thrift:
- label: not_a_positive_integer
request_field:
method: OpenSession
path: configuration.cloudfetch_max_chunks_in_memory
present: false
- label: not_a_positive_integer
cloud_downloads_min: 1
sea:
- label: not_a_positive_integer
request_field:
operation: CreateSession
path: session_confs.cloudfetch_max_chunks_in_memory
present: false
- label: not_a_positive_integer
cloud_downloads_min: 1
Context
- The behavior was first fixed in a DIFFERENT driver — reference PR: https://github.com/databricks/databricks-odbc/pull/231 — which seeded the shared language-neutral spec. This issue tracks the same conformance gap in databricks/databricks-sql-python; the reference PR is for cross-referencing the intended behavior, NOT a change to this repo.
- Coverage PR carrying the reproducing xfail test(s): https://github.com/databricks/databricks-driver-test/pull/1242
- Lenguaje dominante
- Python
- Estrellas
- 233
- Forks
- 152
- Merge medio
- 21 h 5 min
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 10
Guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de databricks/databricks-sql-python
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 84/100
Todos los issues de databricks/databricks-sql-python
Issues similares
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 74/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 84/100
PolicyEngine/policyengine-us#9559 ·
-
priority: p3
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
googleapis/librarian#7636 ·
-
from:qa priority:P2 reliability tech-debt
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
spec-kitty/spec-kitty#4874 ·
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 68/100