kbendick opened a new pull request, #4697:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/4697

   Some tests in Flink's `TestFlinkTableSource` have been found to be order 
dependent.
   
   As the order of results on read is not defined (without an order by clause), 
most of the tests were fixed in 
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/commit/c726b2222f491aac02f0f1910898b4a8dfda2b14
   
   However, there is one test that has a `LIMIT 1` that then asserts on the 
row, which could be any of 3 possible rows.
   
   As Flink happened to be returning the records in a stable manner prior to 
Flink 1.15, this test was passing. But in PR 
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/4693, this test was discovered to 
occasionally fail, as `SELECT * .... LIMIT 1` on a table with 3 results has no 
guarantee of which record will be returned.
   
   Failed execution output:
   ```
   org.apache.iceberg.flink.TestFlinkTableSource > testLimitPushDown FAILED
       java.lang.AssertionError: Should produce the expected records 
expected:<+I[1, iceberg, 10.0]> but was:<+I[2, b, 20.0]>
           at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:89)
           at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:835)
           at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:120)
           at 
org.apache.iceberg.flink.TestFlinkTableSource.testLimitPushDown(TestFlinkTableSource.java:107)
   ```
   
   I've updated the test to assert that there is only one record, and that it 
is one of the 3 records in the table (which is assured by the previous query, 
which issues `SELECT * .. LIMIT 4` with no filter and gets 3 records back).


-- 
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]

Reply via email to