skyyyy955 opened a new pull request, #10899:
URL: https://github.com/apache/paimon/pull/10899

   ### Purpose
   
   Fix two Windows failures in `RowFileIndexConsistencyTest`. Its `patch()` 
helper passes `path.toUri().getPath()` to `Paths.get(String)`, leaving a 
leading slash before the drive letter. This throws `InvalidPathException` 
before the corrupt-file assertions run.
   
   Resolve the fixture filename against the existing JUnit `tempDir`. Both 
patched files are direct children of that directory. The corrupted bytes and 
assertions stay unchanged; the diff is one line in one test file, with no 
production, API or format change.
   
   The existing tests were introduced by jackylee-ch in #10001 and extended in 
#10069. This change only fixes their local-path handling.
   
   ### Tests
   
   Ran the complete `RowFileIndexConsistencyTest` on Windows / JDK 8u451 and 
Linux / JDK 8u441 at `1418eb504e67bfa867449d9a1286450544131cf3`:
   
   | Environment | Before | After |
   | --- | --- | --- |
   | Windows | 7 passed, 2 `InvalidPathException` errors | 9 passed |
   | Linux | 9 passed | 9 passed |
   
   `mvn -B -ntp -pl paimon-format -am -DwildcardSuites=none 
-DfailIfNoTests=false -Dtest=RowFileIndexConsistencyTest test`
   
   Final runs also used `-o` and passed without `fast-build`. Spotless and 
Enforcer passed on both platforms; Linux also passed Checkstyle outside a 
`target`-suppressed source path. Full-module tests, RAT and official PR CI have 
not run.
   
   The branch is based on `0369648333b9278d4d61a0768cf355f3299ec111`. Compared 
with the tested base, only three Python source/CI files differ; all Java/build 
inputs and the test patch are identical. Tests were not repeated after this 
base change.
   


-- 
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]

Reply via email to