[coverage] Conformance findings: CLOUDFETCH-019
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
Valutazione
- Difficoltà
- 4/5
- Tempo stimato
- 3-5 giorni
- Idoneità per principianti
- 52/100
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia con il test fallito test_invalid_client_side_cloudfetch_knob_value_does_not_fail_session_open nel diff della PR di coverage sotto tests/, quindi traccia la gestione delle opzioni Thrift di CloudFetch nel driver Python. Riproduci i valori non positivi e troppo grandi e verifica che la query abbia esito positivo con almeno una riga, che la configurazione non valida sia assente da OpenSession e che CloudFetch continui a scaricare i dati.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Descrizione
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
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 233
- Fork
- 152
- Merge medio
- 21h 5m
- PR unite (30g)
- 10
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di databricks/databricks-sql-python
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 78/100
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 76/100
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 78/100
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 72/100
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 84/100
Tutte le issue di databricks/databricks-sql-python
Issue simili
-
fix: inaccuracy ⚠️
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 72/100
uabrc/uabrc.github.io#1255 · 1 commento ·
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 84/100
ethereum-optimism/factory#64 ·
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 90/100
duckdb/duckdb-python#627 ·
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 68/100
-
Add link for tutorial Apertadocumentation
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 78/100
Qiskit/qiskit-addon-sqd#376 ·