[coverage] Conformance findings: CLOUDFETCH-019
Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.
Évaluation
- Difficulté
- 4/5
- Temps estimé
- 3-5 jours
- Accessibilité débutants
- 52/100
Piste de recherche
Commencez par le test en échec test_invalid_client_side_cloudfetch_knob_value_does_not_fail_session_open dans le diff de la PR de couverture sous tests/, puis suivez la gestion des options Thrift de CloudFetch dans le pilote Python. Reproduisez les valeurs non positives et excessivement grandes, et vérifiez que la requête réussit avec au moins une ligne, que la configuration invalide est absente de OpenSession et que CloudFetch télécharge toujours les données.
Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Description
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
- Langage dominant
- Python
- Étoiles
- 233
- Forks
- 152
- Merge moyen
- 21 h 5 min
- PR mergées (30 j)
- 10
Guide de contribution
Ouvrir le guide de contribution
Par où commencer
- Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
- Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
- Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
- Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.
Autres issues de databricks/databricks-sql-python
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 78/100
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 76/100
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 78/100
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 72/100
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 84/100
Toutes les issues de databricks/databricks-sql-python
Issues similaires
-
essnmx good first issue
Difficulté 1/5 Moins d'une heure Accessibilité débutants 95/100
-
[Feature] 奇物选择添加优先级 Ouverte
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 65/100
syfoud/Simulated_Scepter#174 ·
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 75/100
Giskard-AI/giskard-oss#2840 · 1 commentaire ·
-
A claim comment carrying the issue number is silently declined while the workflow reports success Ouvertearea: repo bug perceived difficulty: 2
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 70/100
-
Difficulté 2/5 1-3 heures Accessibilité débutants 75/100
yeti-platform/yeti#1380 ·