korlov42 commented on code in PR #3309:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/3309#discussion_r1507212382
##########
modules/sql-engine/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/sql/engine/planner/ColocatedSortAggregatePlannerTest.java:
##########
@@ -293,47 +295,17 @@ public void noSortAppendingWithCorrectCollation() throws
Exception {
*/
@Test
public void emptyCollationPassThroughLimit() throws Exception {
- assertPlan(TestCase.CASE_17,
- hasChildThat(isInstanceOf(IgniteCorrelatedNestedLoopJoin.class)
- .and(input(1,
isInstanceOf(IgniteColocatedSortAggregate.class)
- .and(input(isInstanceOf(IgniteLimit.class)
-
.and(input(isInstanceOf(IgniteSort.class)
-
.and(input(isTableScan("TEST")))
- ))
- ))
- ))
- ),
- disableRules
- );
+ RuntimeException e = assertThrows(RuntimeException.class,
+ () -> assertPlan(TestCase.CASE_17,
isInstanceOf(IgniteRel.class), disableRules));
+ assertThat(e.getMessage(), containsString("There are not enough rules
to produce a node with desired properties"));
Review Comment:
I thought about it, but decided to go with changing the test. First, I want
to make sure such plan is impossible, so we need such test anyway. Second, this
is not just side effect of my change, but rather intended result. When (or most
probably "if") we fix problem with correlated sorted exchange, there is no
guarantee the resulting plan will be the same.
--
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: notifications-unsubscr...@ignite.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
