-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
fix: Support aggregate expressions in QUALIFY
#17313
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
eb7ac5b
fix: aggregate references within qualify
rkrishn7 e2870af
add sql integration tests
rkrishn7 f2bf5b8
update slts
rkrishn7 c629806
appease clippy
rkrishn7 b4b414a
Merge branch 'main' into fix/17210
rkrishn7 17cb34b
update snap
rkrishn7 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ fn test_missing_non_aggregate_in_group_by() -> Result<()> { | |
let diag = do_query(query); | ||
assert_snapshot!(diag.message, @"'person.first_name' must appear in GROUP BY clause because it's not an aggregate expression"); | ||
assert_eq!(diag.span, Some(spans["a"])); | ||
assert_snapshot!(diag.helps[0].message, @"Either add 'person.first_name' to GROUP BY clause, or use an aggregare function like ANY_VALUE(person.first_name)"); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. ❤️ |
||
assert_snapshot!(diag.helps[0].message, @"Either add 'person.first_name' to GROUP BY clause, or use an aggregate function like ANY_VALUE(person.first_name)"); | ||
Ok(()) | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
nit: this logic is pretty similar to what is used for
HAVING
. What about creating a helper function for this helper logic?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.
Definitely similar, although currently we still require multiple distinct function calls to
check_column_satisfy_expr
because for each expression (SELECT
,HAVING
,QUALIFY
), we pass in diagnostic information that indicates which clause the error occurs in (CheckColumnsSatisfyExprsPurpose
).Given this, I'm not quite sure a helper function would help readability/redundancy too much
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.
Perhaps we can try it in a follow on PR