-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.5k
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
Conversation
|
@github-actions crossbow submit test-r-rstudio-r-base-4.2-centos7-devtoolset-8 |
Revision: 1b4f681 Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-de322a4fe4
|
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.
Thanks for fixing this @paleolimbot!
### 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]>
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. |
### 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]>
### 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]>
### 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]>
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