Skip to content

chore: Enable CometFuzzTestSuite int96 test for experimental native scans (without complex types) #1664

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 21, 2025

Conversation

mbutrovich
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue does this PR close?

N/A

Rationale for this change

#1652 added better int96 support for experimental native scans (relying on CometCastSuite and other Parquet tests) but did not enable CometFuzzTestSuite because it uses complex types by default. There's an issue in DF's schema coercion for complex types.

What changes are included in this PR?

This PR modifies the test to get coverage with the int96 data type without complex types.

How are these changes tested?

New test coverage.

@mbutrovich mbutrovich changed the title Enable CometFuzzTestSuite int96 test for experimental native scans (without complex types) chore: Enable CometFuzzTestSuite int96 test for experimental native scans (without complex types) Apr 21, 2025
@@ -206,10 +206,15 @@ class CometFuzzTestSuite extends CometTestBase with AdaptiveSparkPlanHelper {
}

private def testParquetTemporalTypes(
outputTimestampType: ParquetOutputTimestampType.Value): Unit = {
outputTimestampType: ParquetOutputTimestampType.Value,
generateArray: Boolean = true,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we also generate maps?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be good to start testing maps as well in the fuzz suite. Some of the existing tests cannot work with map types though (because maps don't implementing ordering). We may need to add new map-specific tests.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For this PR I'd just like to match existing functionality. We should open an issue to add map coverage to the CometFuzzTestSuite.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I filed an issue: #1665

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Filed #1666

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Apr 21, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 58.81%. Comparing base (f09f8af) to head (cada7c5).
Report is 152 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #1664      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     56.12%   58.81%   +2.68%     
- Complexity      976     1082     +106     
============================================
  Files           119      125       +6     
  Lines         11743    12592     +849     
  Branches       2251     2362     +111     
============================================
+ Hits           6591     7406     +815     
- Misses         4012     4015       +3     
- Partials       1140     1171      +31     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@andygrove andygrove merged commit 0afe8ba into apache:main Apr 21, 2025
79 of 80 checks passed
@mbutrovich mbutrovich deleted the int96_fuzz branch April 21, 2025 18:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants