From: "Ilya Kosarev" <i.kosarev@tarantool.org> To: "Alexander Turenko" <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org> Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] key_def: support composite types extraction Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 00:53:14 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1601157194.729560301@f185.i.mail.ru> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200925183450.atsuxr4ine7c2dv7@tkn_work_nb> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3942 bytes --] Hi, Thanks for your review! Sent v2 of the patch considering your comments. >Пятница, 25 сентября 2020, 21:34 +03:00 от Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>: > >I have no objections in general, but there are doubts around several >places. Please, look below. > >WBR, Alexander Turenko. > >> +static bool >> +key_def_comparable(struct key_def *key_def) > >What make me doubt: key_def is not comparable per se, it may or may not >be used for comparison of tuples and a tuple with a key. >'key_def_has_comparator' or 'key_def_can_compare' (however not key_def >itself perform comparisons, hmm), maybe, don't know. Well, yes. I meant key_def as a module affiliation here, not like an object. Good thing is that we don’t really need separate function with the new approach! > >> +{ >> + for (uint32_t i = 0; i < key_def->part_count; ++i) { >> + if (key_def->parts[i].type == FIELD_TYPE_ANY || >> + key_def->parts[i].type == FIELD_TYPE_ARRAY || >> + key_def->parts[i].type == FIELD_TYPE_MAP) { >> + /* Tuple comparators don't support these types. */ >> + diag_set(IllegalParams, "Unsupported field type: %s", >> + field_type_strs[key_def->parts[i].type]); >> + return false; >> + } >> + } >> + return true; >> +} >> + > >Ilya gives the idea: perform this check on key_def creation and store a >flag inside key_def. Check against the flag in lbox_key_def_compare() >and lbox_key_def_compare_with_key(). > >This looks as the right way to solve this kind of problems: comparisons >are more hot functions than key_def creation. > >We can sink it down to key_def_set_compare_func() and set NULL to >key_def->{tuple_compare,tuple_compare_with_key}. Than check it in >lbox_key_def_compare*() and add asserts to tuple_compare*(). No new >fields will be required so. Yes! This seems like the right choice. Though we still need a field here: somewhere to store the unsupported type to show it to the user any time he tries to compare. Implemented in v2 of the patch. > >This part surely should look someone, who is more near to comparators >than me. > >> /** >> * Free a key_def from a Lua code. >> */ >> @@ -316,6 +320,9 @@ lbox_key_def_compare(struct lua_State *L) >> "compare(tuple_a, tuple_b)"); >> } >> >> + if (!key_def_comparable(key_def)) >> + return luaT_error(L); >> + >> struct tuple *tuple_a, *tuple_b; >> if ((tuple_a = luaT_key_def_check_tuple(L, key_def, 2)) == NULL) >> return luaT_error(L); >> @@ -349,6 +356,9 @@ lbox_key_def_compare_with_key(struct lua_State *L) >> "compare_with_key(tuple, key)"); >> } >> >> + if (!key_def_comparable(key_def)) >> + return luaT_error(L); >> + >> struct tuple *tuple = luaT_key_def_check_tuple(L, key_def, 2); >> if (tuple == NULL) >> return luaT_error(L); >> diff --git a/test/box-tap/key_def.test.lua b/test/box-tap/key_def.test.lua >> index 3a4aad68721..8fcdf7070bf 100755 > >How about lbox_key_def_merge() and underlying functions? I'm not sure >they will work correct. At least I tried this on the branch: > > | tarantool> key_def = require('key_def') > | tarantool> kd1 = key_def.new({{fieldno = 1, type = 'array'}}) > | tarantool> kd2 = key_def.new({{fieldno = 1, type = 'map'}}) > | tarantool> kd1:merge(kd2) > | --- > | - - type: array > | is_nullable: false > | fieldno: 1 > | ... > >It does not look correct. This turns out to be the correct behavior: tarantool> kd1 = key_def.new({{fieldno = 1, type = 'unsigned'}}) --- ... tarantool> kd2 = key_def.new({{fieldno = 1, type = 'string'}}) --- ... tarantool> kd1:merge(kd2) --- - - type: unsigned is_nullable: false fieldno: 1 … I decided these functions don’t really interfere and didn’t manage to test. Although this is kinda true for now, that wasn’t a correct decision, as far as behavior might be changed. Adding the tests in the v2 of the patch. > >Everything looks good with lbox_key_def_to_table(), but I would add a >test anyway. -- Ilya Kosarev [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5618 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-26 21:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-09-21 12:11 Ilya Kosarev 2020-09-25 18:34 ` Alexander Turenko 2020-09-26 21:53 ` Ilya Kosarev [this message] 2020-10-01 11:38 ` Alexander Turenko 2020-10-01 15:26 ` Ilya Kosarev
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1601157194.729560301@f185.i.mail.ru \ --to=i.kosarev@tarantool.org \ --cc=alexander.turenko@tarantool.org \ --cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] key_def: support composite types extraction' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox