> On March 29, 2016, 4:20 p.m., John Sirois wrote:
> > How would these queries produce incorrect results as compared to previous 
> > queries?  Perviously, a check for the collection being null would have had 
> > to have been made by the caller (or a check for !IsSet) to skip the calls 
> > you've added precondition checks to.  The IsSet calls are now gone, meaning 
> > the call sites using those have been semantically adjusted.  I think this 
> > only leaves the callers who pass null of which there should be none due to 
> > the semantic change as well.

If i understand you correctly - the problem is with call sites that assume 
`Query.slaveScoped(ImmutableList.of()` translates into `SELECT xyz WHERE 
slave_host IN ()` (always returning 0 rows).

However, the semantic is now such that the above query is equivalent to `SELECT 
xyz WHERE 1`.


- Bill


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45457/#review125978
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 29, 2016, 4:01 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45457/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 29, 2016, 4:01 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-1652
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1652
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Short of surveying call sites, i don't know the impact of this change.  
> However, my sense is that it's still better to fail fast than produce 
> incorrect results (due to the recent change in semantics of filtering by an 
> empty iterable).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/base/Query.java 
> c76b365f43eb6a3b9b0b63a879b43eb04dcd8fac 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45457/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Farner
> 
>

Reply via email to