-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Expression test modify #3041
Expression test modify #3041
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3041 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.20% 84.22% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 1287 1287
Lines 115319 115625 +306
==========================================
+ Hits 97100 97386 +286
- Misses 18219 18239 +20
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -60,7 +60,12 @@ TEST_F(FunctionCallExpressionTest, FunctionCallTest) { | |||
path.src.vid = "1"; | |||
STEP("2", "edge", 0, 1); | |||
STEP("1", "edge", 0, -1); | |||
TEST_FUNCTION(hasSameEdgeInPath, {path}, true); |
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.
I think you should provide some new test utilities instead of expand them.
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.
done.
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.
Why don't use TEST_FUNCTION?
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.
TEST_FUNCTION is a parser process, here cannot construct a sentence to call parser.
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.
Lgtm.
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.
Where to use the graph parser in the following tests? I don't think this changes improve these tests clearly.
Not to improve, but to verify the correctness of the original expression。 |
* modify expression test * modify expression test 2 * complete coding * fix bug * modify expression test case * clang-format * fix bug:initialization-order-fiasco * add some obj * add test_path_function Co-authored-by: cpw <[email protected]>
* Expression test modify (#3041) * modify expression test * modify expression test 2 * complete coding * fix bug * modify expression test case * clang-format * fix bug:initialization-order-fiasco * add some obj * add test_path_function Co-authored-by: cpw <[email protected]> * add hash<set> & hash<map> (#3051) * fix dangling edge in path (#3008) * fix dangling edge * add test case * fix ci error * Fix graph/meta/storage version in show hosts (#3054) * Fix graph version bug * Fix storage version * Print cpack config * Decrease ubuntu compile parallelism * fix bug #3048 (#3069) Co-authored-by: haifei.zhao <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: cpw <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: jimingquan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Yee <[email protected]>
Background:
Since the original repos are separate, the nebula/src/common/expression/test module is written based on the original repo:nebula-common. The parser module in nebual-graph cannot be called directly. Now that the repos are merged, we want to directly call the parser module to do the test.