Skip to content
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

expression: from_unixtime accept 64-bit integers #22616

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 10, 2022

Conversation

TszKitLo40
Copy link
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #22206

Problem Summary:

What is changed and how it works?

What's Changed:
from_unixtime accept 64-bit integers
How it Works:
evalFromUnixTime accepts 64-bit integers

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test

Side effects

  • Performance regression
    • Consumes more CPU
    • Consumes more MEM
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Release note

  • No release note

@TszKitLo40 TszKitLo40 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 29, 2021 03:08
@TszKitLo40 TszKitLo40 requested review from XuHuaiyu and removed request for a team January 29, 2021 03:08
@TszKitLo40
Copy link
Contributor Author

@morgo PTAL, but it seems that the test case select from_unixtime(1511247196661) is overflow.

@morgo
Copy link
Contributor

morgo commented Jan 29, 2021

@morgo PTAL, but it seems that the test case select from_unixtime(1511247196661) is overflow.

Yeah, I think this should return NULL still. Thanks for taking a look at this!

@TszKitLo40
Copy link
Contributor Author

@morgo PTAL, but it seems that the test case select from_unixtime(1511247196661) is overflow.

Yeah, I think this should return NULL still. Thanks for taking a look at this!

This overflow is not caused by the time.Unix, it is caused in the function FromDate, it seems it is hard to know whether is will be overflow in this function.

@ichn-hu ichn-hu mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2021
@guo-shaoge guo-shaoge removed the request for review from XuHuaiyu June 10, 2021 03:14
@hawkingrei
Copy link
Member

@TszKitLo40 Do you have time to finish this PR? If there is no reply within a week, I will close the PR and take over the job.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Jan 23, 2022
@TszKitLo40
Copy link
Contributor Author

@TszKitLo40 Do you have time to finish this PR? If there is no reply within a week, I will close the PR and take over the job.

OK,I will try to finish it.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Feb 2, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 2, 2022
@TszKitLo40
Copy link
Contributor Author

PTAL @hawkingrei

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Feb 2, 2022

Copy link
Contributor

@morgo morgo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

MySQL 8.0 also fixes the functions UNIX_TIMESTAMP() and CONVERT_TZ(), but we can fork this to a separate issue. I suggest we close #22206 but keep #31786 open.

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Feb 2, 2022

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • hawkingrei
  • morgo

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Feb 2, 2022
@TszKitLo40
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cc @hawkingrei

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Feb 10, 2022
@xhebox
Copy link
Contributor

xhebox commented Feb 10, 2022

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: d60a298

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Feb 10, 2022
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

@TszKitLo40: Your PR was out of date, I have automatically updated it for you.

At the same time I will also trigger all tests for you:

/run-all-tests

If the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component/expression size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

from_unixtime does not accept 64-bit integers
6 participants