Skip to content
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

GH-38293: [R] Fix non-deterministic duckdb test #38294

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2023

Conversation

paleolimbot
Copy link
Member

@paleolimbot paleolimbot commented Oct 16, 2023

Rationale for this change

The test fail with the latest version of duckdb (0.9.1).

What changes are included in this PR?

The test was changed so that it did not depend on non-deterministic behaviour. We sort all of the other expectations involving a group_by to avoid this problem...we hadn't changed this one yet because it didn't fail in any previous version of duckdb.

Are these changes tested?

Yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

@github-actions
Copy link

⚠️ GitHub issue #38293 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

@paleolimbot
Copy link
Member Author

@github-actions crossbow submit test-r-rstudio-r-base-4.2-centos7-devtoolset-8

@github-actions
Copy link

Revision: 1b4f681

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-de322a4fe4

Task Status
test-r-rstudio-r-base-4.2-centos7-devtoolset-8 Azure

Copy link
Member

@thisisnic thisisnic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for fixing this @paleolimbot!

@github-actions github-actions bot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review labels Oct 16, 2023
@paleolimbot paleolimbot merged commit b3b958e into apache:main Oct 17, 2023
11 checks passed
@paleolimbot paleolimbot removed the awaiting merge Awaiting merge label Oct 17, 2023
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2023
### Rationale for this change

The test fail with the latest version of duckdb (0.9.1).

### What changes are included in this PR?

The test was changed so that it did not depend on non-deterministic behaviour. We sort all of the other expectations involving a group_by to avoid this problem...we hadn't changed this one yet because it didn't fail in any previous version of duckdb.

### Are these changes tested?

Yes

### Are there any user-facing changes?

No
* Closes: #38293

Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
@conbench-apache-arrow
Copy link

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit b3b958e.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 2 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

JerAguilon pushed a commit to JerAguilon/arrow that referenced this pull request Oct 23, 2023
### Rationale for this change

The test fail with the latest version of duckdb (0.9.1).

### What changes are included in this PR?

The test was changed so that it did not depend on non-deterministic behaviour. We sort all of the other expectations involving a group_by to avoid this problem...we hadn't changed this one yet because it didn't fail in any previous version of duckdb.

### Are these changes tested?

Yes

### Are there any user-facing changes?

No
* Closes: apache#38293

Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
loicalleyne pushed a commit to loicalleyne/arrow that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2023
### Rationale for this change

The test fail with the latest version of duckdb (0.9.1).

### What changes are included in this PR?

The test was changed so that it did not depend on non-deterministic behaviour. We sort all of the other expectations involving a group_by to avoid this problem...we hadn't changed this one yet because it didn't fail in any previous version of duckdb.

### Are these changes tested?

Yes

### Are there any user-facing changes?

No
* Closes: apache#38293

Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
### Rationale for this change

The test fail with the latest version of duckdb (0.9.1).

### What changes are included in this PR?

The test was changed so that it did not depend on non-deterministic behaviour. We sort all of the other expectations involving a group_by to avoid this problem...we hadn't changed this one yet because it didn't fail in any previous version of duckdb.

### Are these changes tested?

Yes

### Are there any user-facing changes?

No
* Closes: apache#38293

Authored-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dewey Dunnington <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[R] duckdb tests fail with duckdb 0.9.1
2 participants