GH-32570: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary
#39234
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary
|
|
|
@github-actions crossbow submit test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp |
|
Revision: 8edc1d1 Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-d19754bb45
|
|
@github-actions crossbow submit test-macos-12-cpp |
|
|
@github-actions crossbow submit test-macos-cpp |
|
|
@github-actions crossbow submit cpp |
|
|
@github-actions crossbow submit test |
|
|
@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp |
|
Revision: 8edc1d1 Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-ac27092881
|
assignUser
added
the
Critical Fix
|
I wanted to retry the CI because the failures don't seem to be related to my change. I don't know how so I tried some commands but obviously they are not what I wanted :( |
|
cc @bkietz |
pitrou
reviewed
Dec 21, 2023
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting committer review
pitrou
reviewed
Dec 21, 2023
pitrou
reviewed
Dec 21, 2023
pitrou
approved these changes
Dec 21, 2023
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 2abb3fb. 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. |
pitrou
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585) ### Rationale for this change #39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue. ### What changes are included in this PR? Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types. ### Are these changes tested? UT included. ### Are there any user-facing changes? * Closes: #39583 Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
idailylife
pushed a commit
to idailylife/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585) ### Rationale for this change apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue. ### What changes are included in this PR? Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types. ### Are these changes tested? UT included. ### Are there any user-facing changes? * Closes: apache#39583 Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
clayburn
pushed a commit
to clayburn/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2024
…ing consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (apache#39234) ### Rationale for this change Addressed in apache#32570 (comment) ### What changes are included in this PR? 1. Skip consecutive rows with the same id when calculating rows to skip when appending to `ExecBatchBuilder`. 2. Fix the bug that column offset is neglected when calculating rows to skip. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. New UT included and the change is also protected by the existing case mentioned in the issue. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** Because apache#32570 is labeled critical, and causes a crash even when the API contract is upheld. * Closes: apache#32570 Authored-by: zanmato <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
clayburn
pushed a commit
to clayburn/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585) ### Rationale for this change apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue. ### What changes are included in this PR? Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types. ### Are these changes tested? UT included. ### Are there any user-facing changes? * Closes: apache#39583 Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
dgreiss
pushed a commit
to dgreiss/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2024
…ing consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (apache#39234) ### Rationale for this change Addressed in apache#32570 (comment) ### What changes are included in this PR? 1. Skip consecutive rows with the same id when calculating rows to skip when appending to `ExecBatchBuilder`. 2. Fix the bug that column offset is neglected when calculating rows to skip. ### Are these changes tested? Yes. New UT included and the change is also protected by the existing case mentioned in the issue. ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** Because apache#32570 is labeled critical, and causes a crash even when the API contract is upheld. * Closes: apache#32570 Authored-by: zanmato <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
dgreiss
pushed a commit
to dgreiss/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585) ### Rationale for this change apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue. ### What changes are included in this PR? Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types. ### Are these changes tested? UT included. ### Are there any user-facing changes? * Closes: apache#39583 Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585) ### Rationale for this change #39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue. ### What changes are included in this PR? Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types. ### Are these changes tested? UT included. ### Are there any user-facing changes? * Closes: #39583 Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
zanmato1984
added a commit
to zanmato1984/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585) ### Rationale for this change apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue. ### What changes are included in this PR? Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types. ### Are these changes tested? UT included. ### Are there any user-facing changes? * Closes: apache#39583 Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
thisisnic
pushed a commit
to thisisnic/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585) ### Rationale for this change apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue. ### What changes are included in this PR? Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types. ### Are these changes tested? UT included. ### Are there any user-facing changes? * Closes: apache#39583 Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
Addressed in #32570 (comment)
What changes are included in this PR?
ExecBatchBuilder.Are these changes tested?
Yes. New UT included and the change is also protected by the existing case mentioned in the issue.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.
This PR contains a "Critical Fix".
Because #32570 is labeled critical, and causes a crash even when the API contract is upheld.