[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-7129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18012909#comment-18012909
]
Zhen Chen commented on CALCITE-7129:
------------------------------------
Thanks to both [~zabetak] and [~asolimando] for the discussion and resolution.
At that time, my local debugging failed, which led me to adopt a highly
invasive solution. But now it seems the outcome is quite good. I'm aslo a
person of action—I don't like leaving problems unresolved for long. I’ve also
learned a lot from you.
> Drop @RuleConfig annotation used in Quidem tests
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-7129
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-7129
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tests
> Affects Versions: 1.40.0
> Reporter: Alessandro Solimando
> Assignee: Alessandro Solimando
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 1.41.0
>
>
> The annotation can be safely removed without loss of functionality, so the
> ticket finally aims at removing it entirely, no tests are needed as the
> change is covered by those of CALCITE-6998 (planner.iq).
> Original description:
> -In the context of CALCITE-7125, I have introduced a variant of
> [IntersectToDistinctRule|https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/4fa0d5bbe987c4ae0779ca434fb71e1ae8637b77/core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/rel/rules/IntersectToDistinctRule.java]
> with a non-default configuration.-
> -When trying to use the rule with the new instructions for iq tests
> introduced in CALCITE-6335 (and refined in CALCITE-6998 to support rules with
> multiple configurations), the default configuration was being picked up,
> _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_ instead of that of
> _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_NO_AGGREGATE_PUSHDOWN_, and it took me a
> while to realize what was happening.-
> -Basically, I forgot to add the "@RuleConfig" annotation to the non-standard
> configuration of _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_NO_AGGREGATE_PUSHDOWN_, and
> the test was silently using that of _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_
> instead, I noticed only because I was specifically looking at plan
> differences between the two.-
> -Not sure it's doable easily, but ideally we should have a check somewhere
> that is throwing an error if multiple variants of the same rule are present,
> and the non-default configuration lacks the required annotation.-
> -I am not sure, but more rules currently used might suffer from this problem.-
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
