-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 315
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: add respective get_by_path UDFs for JSON type #4720
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work! 🤩 Rest LGTM
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4720 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.81% 84.53% -0.29%
==========================================
Files 1114 1115 +1
Lines 200739 201197 +458
==========================================
- Hits 170250 170072 -178
- Misses 30489 31125 +636 |
Co-authored-by: Weny Xu <[email protected]>
I really dislike the name "get_by_path_xxx" because it doesn't reflect any JSON-related meaning and could potentially conflict or be associated with other function names. Perhaps we could change it to "json_path_xxx"? What do you think? @WenyXu @CookiePieWw |
How about |
LGTM |
c965327
to
b3b268a
Compare
LGTM, but we should add some test for this udf in the where clause in the next pr. |
* feat: add respectiv get_by_path udf for json type * Apply review comments Co-authored-by: Weny Xu <[email protected]> * fix: fix compile error * refactor: change name of UDFs, add some tests --------- Co-authored-by: Weny Xu <[email protected]>
I hereby agree to the terms of the GreptimeDB CLA.
Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)
#3686 #4515 #4230
What's changed and what's your intention?
Add respective get_by_path for json type. see https://github.com/datafuselabs/jsonb?tab=readme-ov-file#operators for the supported operators in the path.
Checklist