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

evalengine: Implement SEC_TO_TIME #15755

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 23, 2024
Merged

Conversation

beingnoble03
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR adds implementation of SEC_TO_TIME func in evalengine.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Apr 18, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Apr 18, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone Apr 18, 2024
@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Apr 18, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 18, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.14815% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.43%. Comparing base (178e6e8) to head (b9e929d).
Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/fn_time.go 98.03% 1 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/translate_builtin.go 75.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15755      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.38%   68.43%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files        1556     1556              
  Lines      195361   195598     +237     
==========================================
+ Hits       133598   133853     +255     
+ Misses      61763    61745      -18     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@systay systay requested review from dbussink and vmg April 19, 2024 05:30
@@ -719,6 +719,52 @@ func NewTimeFromStd(t time.Time) Time {
}
}

func NewTimeFromSecondsDecimal(seconds decimal.Decimal) Time {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need the Decimal postfix on the function name here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we usually use float64 or int64 for representing seconds, so i thought it would be better to add Decimal prefix in the func name. altho i think it's already visible from the function signature, so removing it.

min := sec.Div(decimal.NewFromInt(60), 0)
_, sec = sec.QuoRem(decimal.NewFromInt(60), 0)

if h.Cmp(decimal.NewFromInt(839)) >= 0 {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shall we extract 838 or 839 into a constant? It's also used in fn_time.go as well, so maybe time to do that? I'd probably say I have a tiny preference for checks in the style of > 838 vs. >= 839, but either works then really.

We can also use it in the next line then.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done.

if b.isHexOrBitLiteral() {
e = evalToDecimal(arg, 0, 0)
} else {
e = evalToDecimal(arg, 0, datetime.DefaultPrecision)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this the right precision? Or should it be inferred from the input string in this case?

Copy link
Member Author

@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 Apr 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this should be the correct precision for this case, as mysql seems to set 6 as precision for *evalBytes (excluding Hex or Bit).

go/mysql/datetime/datetime.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 735 to 738
h := sec.Div(decimal.NewFromInt(3600), 0)
_, sec = sec.QuoRem(decimal.NewFromInt(3600), 0)
min := sec.Div(decimal.NewFromInt(60), 0)
_, sec = sec.QuoRem(decimal.NewFromInt(60), 0)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are you doing a Div followed by QuoRem? The first returned element of QuoRem, which you're ignoring, is the quotient of the division. You can check the code to see that Div simply calls QuoRem under the hood. You're doing the same operation twice and throwing away the result!

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, we can move the decimal.NewFromInt to static global variables to make this method zero-allocation.

var (
    decSecondsInHour = decimal.NewFromInt(3600)
    decMinutesInHour = decimal.NewFromInt(60)
    decMaxHours = decimal.NewFromInt(MaxHours)
)

This way we get to reuse the decimal parsing and allocation between calls.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

got it, done. Thanks @vmg!

@vmg
Copy link
Collaborator

vmg commented Apr 23, 2024

Looking good @beingnoble03! Let's make more efficient use of the decimal APIs before we merge this.

@beingnoble03 beingnoble03 requested a review from vmg April 23, 2024 10:53
@vmg vmg merged commit 204bc50 into vitessio:main Apr 23, 2024
104 checks passed
@vmg
Copy link
Collaborator

vmg commented Apr 23, 2024

😎

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants