Support IoTDBLocal in UDF for table model#18035
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Weihao Li <18110526956@163.com>
Signed-off-by: Weihao Li <18110526956@163.com>
Signed-off-by: Weihao Li <18110526956@163.com>
Signed-off-by: Weihao Li <18110526956@163.com>
Signed-off-by: Weihao Li <18110526956@163.com>
JackieTien97
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Extend the IT coverage for the missing IoTDBLocal scenarios from the design doc. In particular, we should have an IT proving that IoTDBLocal.query() rejects non-query statements such as INSERT, CREATE TABLE, or DROP TABLE before any side effect happens; an IT where UDAF and table-function lifecycle methods actually call local.query() rather than only logging through IoTDBLocal; and, if possible, a cluster/partial-aggregation case that exercises combineState(state, rhs, local). These would close the current gap between the documented self-test scenarios and the PR coverage.
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #18035 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 41.15% 41.41% +0.26%
Complexity 318 318
============================================
Files 5258 5286 +28
Lines 365613 369547 +3934
Branches 47282 47815 +533
============================================
+ Hits 150460 153041 +2581
- Misses 215153 216506 +1353 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|



No description provided.