gianm commented on code in PR #14020:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/14020#discussion_r1158729431
##########
extensions-core/multi-stage-query/src/test/java/org/apache/druid/msq/exec/MSQFaultsTest.java:
##########
@@ -132,24 +135,51 @@ public void testInsertTimeOutOfBoundsFault()
@Test
public void testInsertTimeNullFault()
{
+ final String expectedDataSource = "foo1";
+
final RowSignature rowSignature =
RowSignature.builder()
.add("__time", ColumnType.LONG)
- .add("dim1", ColumnType.STRING)
+ .add("cnt", ColumnType.STRING)
.build();
- testIngestQuery()
- .setSql(
- "INSERT INTO foo1\n"
- + "SELECT TIME_PARSE(dim1) AS __time, dim1 as cnt\n"
- + "FROM foo\n"
- + "PARTITIONED BY DAY\n"
- + "CLUSTERED BY dim1")
- .setExpectedDataSource("foo1")
- .setExpectedRowSignature(rowSignature)
- .setExpectedSegment(ImmutableSet.of(SegmentId.of("foo",
Intervals.of("2000-01-01T/P1M"), "test", 0)))
- .setExpectedMSQFault(InsertTimeNullFault.instance())
- .verifyResults();
+ final String sql = "INSERT INTO foo1\n"
+ + "SELECT TIME_PARSE(dim1) AS __time, dim1 as cnt\n"
+ + "FROM foo\n"
+ + "PARTITIONED BY DAY\n"
+ + "CLUSTERED BY dim1";
Review Comment:
I just tried it, and yes, they are the same in that case. Both queries
ingest the two rows with parseable timestamps, and ignore the four with
unparseable timestamps.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
