masonh22 opened a new pull request, #26378:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/26378
## Disclaimer: this is a work in progress!
The code here is heavily AI generated and I have not had time to refine it
yet. I'm posting this here to share the ideas behind the approach, but the
implementation details are not important right now. This can and should be
broken into smaller pieces if we decide this is useful.
`CHECKS.md` describes the kinds of things this crate is testing (warning:
everything but section A is very sloppy).
`DESIGN.md` summarizes the overall implementation. This is also pretty
sloppy.
## Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can
link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123`
indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->
- Closes #.
## Rationale for this change
`ExecutionPlan`s have a lot of properties, both implicit and explicit, that
are important to get right for correctness and performance. The interface
exposes enough that we should be able to create a generic test suite over that
interface to (1) catch real bugs in `ExecutionPlan`s shipped by DataFusion, and
(2) let users more easily create correct and performant `ExecutionPlan`s.
This crate implements a suite of checks to run on `ExecutionPlan`s, as well
as profiles that vary the inputs to the `ExecutionPlan` to increase test
coverage (e.g. varying statistics precision or input partitioning).
The goal is that users only need to define a "spec" that describes valid
inputs to the plan node and the cases will be generated automatically. Some
plans that have multiple configurations (e.g. `RepartitionExec` in different
partitioning modes) will require users to define these variations explicitly.
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in
the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
Please explain the problem you are trying to solve in terms of the
user-visible
behavior, rather than the implementation.
For example, "The code in `foo.rs` doesn't handle nulls" is a symptom of the
implementation. "COUNT(DISTINCT) returns wrong results when the column
contains
nulls" is the user-visible problem.
-->
## What changes are included in this PR?
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here, but it is
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
-->
## What is the testing strategy for this PR?
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
Briefly describe how this PR is tested, and point to the specific tests you
added. For example: 'This new feature is covered by the `sqllogictest` cases
added in `foo.slt`'.
If this PR does not add tests, explain why. For example, if the change is
already covered by existing tests, please mention it.
You should also check the `codecov` bot reply on this PR to confirm the
changed code is exercised.
-->
## Are there any user-facing changes?
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
--
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]
