[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6998?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17949655#comment-17949655
]
Zhen Chen commented on CALCITE-6998:
------------------------------------
[~julianhyde] Thank you for your patience and guidance. I have updated the
description of the problem and the solution.
> The command !set planner-rules does not support rules with multiple Config
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-6998
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6998
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Zhen Chen
> Assignee: Zhen Chen
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
>
> Problem Description:
> For example, ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule contains two Configs, FILTER
> and JOIN.
> {code:java}
> @Value.Immutable(singleton = false)
> public interface Config extends RelRule.Config {
> Config FILTER = ImmutableExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule.Config.builder()
> .withDescription("ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule(Filter)")
> .withMatchHandler(ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule::matchFilter)
> .build()
> .withOperandSupplier(b0 ->
> b0.operand(Filter.class).oneInput(b1 ->
> b1.operand(Join.class).anyInputs())); Config JOIN =
> ImmutableExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule.Config.builder()
> .withDescription("ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule(Join)")
> .withMatchHandler(ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule::matchJoin)
> .build()
> .withOperandSupplier(b -> b.operand(Join.class).anyInputs()); ......
> } {code}
> When using reflection to load rules in CoreRules, the following rules cannot
> be instantiated correctly.
> {code:java}
> public static final ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule
> EXPAND_FILTER_DISJUNCTION_LOCAL
> = ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule.Config.FILTER.toRule();
>
> public static final ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule
> EXPAND_JOIN_DISJUNCTION_LOCAL
> = ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule.Config.JOIN.toRule();{code}
> If both rules are loaded simultaneously, they both end up using
> ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule.Config.FILTER.toRule().
> Solution:
> Add an annotation {{@RuleConfig(value="XXX")}} to each rule in CoreRules,
> where the {{value}} identifies the name of the Config used by the rule. For
> example:
> {code:java}
> @RuleConfig(value = "JOIN")
> public static final ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule
> EXPAND_JOIN_DISJUNCTION_LOCAL =
> ExpandDisjunctionForJoinInputsRule.Config.JOIN.toRule(); {code}
> This indicates that the rule uses the {{JOIN}} Config.
> If a rule has only one Config named {{{}DEFAULT{}}}, the annotation is not
> required.
> This way, during reflection, the correct rule instance can be obtained based
> on the {{@RuleConfig}} annotation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
