Skip to content

[Bug](function) fix wrong result about array_agg_foreach #55075

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
BiteTheDDDDt merged 5 commits into from
Aug 22, 2025
Merged

[Bug](function) fix wrong result about array_agg_foreach #55075

BiteTheDDDDt merged 5 commits into from
Aug 22, 2025

Conversation

@BiteTheDDDDt
Copy link
Contributor

@BiteTheDDDDt BiteTheDDDDt commented Aug 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

What problem does this PR solve?

related with #50181

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason

  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.

  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Aug 20, 2025

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@BiteTheDDDDt
Copy link
Contributor Author

BiteTheDDDDt commented Aug 20, 2025

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 20, 2025

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 94.74% (18/19) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 59.58% (16780/28164)
Line Coverage 48.51% (152640/314687)
Region Coverage 37.47% (116040/309648)
Branch Coverage 40.39% (51236/126859)

@wm1581066 wm1581066 added usercase Important user case type label dev/2.1.x dev/3.0.x dev/3.1.x labels Aug 20, 2025
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 20, 2025

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (19/19) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 82.00% (22628/27596)
Line Coverage 74.72% (235014/314524)
Region Coverage 61.87% (194969/315116)
Branch Coverage 66.08% (84459/127822)

@BiteTheDDDDt
Copy link
Contributor Author

BiteTheDDDDt commented Aug 20, 2025

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 20, 2025

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 0.00% (0/18) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 20, 2025

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (19/19) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 81.96% (22618/27596)
Line Coverage 74.67% (234847/314524)
Region Coverage 61.90% (195046/315116)
Branch Coverage 66.01% (84380/127822)

@ixzc ixzc mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2025
Closed
3 tasks
@BiteTheDDDDt
Copy link
Contributor Author

BiteTheDDDDt commented Aug 21, 2025

run buildall

HappenLee
HappenLee reviewed Aug 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
be/src/vec/aggregate_functions/aggregate_function_array_agg.h Outdated
null_map->resize(size);
nested_column->reserve(size);
null_map->resize(begin + size);
nested_column->reserve(begin + size);
Copy link
Contributor

@HappenLee HappenLee Aug 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why here reserve not resize like null map?

@BiteTheDDDDt
Copy link
Contributor Author

BiteTheDDDDt commented Aug 21, 2025

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 21, 2025

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 90.00% (9/10) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 59.58% (16779/28164)
Line Coverage 48.50% (152622/314680)
Region Coverage 37.49% (116085/309645)
Branch Coverage 40.39% (51233/126853)

HappenLee
HappenLee reviewed Aug 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
be/src/vec/aggregate_functions/aggregate_function_array_agg.h Outdated
const auto size = rhs.null_map->size();
null_map->resize(size);
nested_column->reserve(size);
null_map->resize(begin + size);
Copy link
Contributor

@HappenLee HappenLee Aug 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

insert_range_from()

@BiteTheDDDDt
Copy link
Contributor Author

BiteTheDDDDt commented Aug 21, 2025

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 21, 2025

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 66.67% (2/3) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 59.58% (16781/28165)
Line Coverage 48.50% (152605/314663)
Region Coverage 37.47% (116028/309641)
Branch Coverage 40.38% (51217/126849)

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 21, 2025

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (3/3) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 81.94% (22613/27597)
Line Coverage 74.62% (234687/314504)
Region Coverage 61.89% (195042/315136)
Branch Coverage 66.06% (84430/127816)

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Aug 21, 2025

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (3/3) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 82.12% (22663/27597)
Line Coverage 74.82% (235305/314504)
Region Coverage 62.08% (195634/315136)
Branch Coverage 66.26% (84696/127816)

HappenLee
HappenLee approved these changes Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@HappenLee HappenLee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Aug 22, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 22, 2025

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 22, 2025

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@BiteTheDDDDt BiteTheDDDDt merged commit 7f0785d into apache:master Aug 22, 2025
27 of 28 checks passed
This was referenced Aug 28, 2025
Merged
Merged
Merged
yiguolei pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2025
@BiteTheDDDDt
[Bug](function) fix wrong result about array_agg_foreach #55075 (#55412
c75f42a 
)

pick from #55075
morrySnow pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2025
@BiteTheDDDDt
branch-3.1: [Bug](function) fix wrong result about array_agg_foreach #…
2e5126b 
…55075 (#55420)

pick #55075
dataroaring pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2025
@BiteTheDDDDt
[Bug](function) fix wrong result about array_agg_foreach #55075 (#55419
3c00017 
)

pick from #55075
@morrySnow morrySnow mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2025
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@HappenLee HappenLee HappenLee approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@Mryange Mryange Mryange approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. dev/2.1.12-merged dev/3.0.9-merged dev/3.1.1-merged reviewed usercase Important user case type label

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants

@BiteTheDDDDt @Thearas @hello-stephen @HappenLee @Mryange @yiguolei @wm1581066 @dataroaring @morrySnow