-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
statedb: handle empty index name in queries #169
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
Draft
tklauser
wants to merge
3
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
pr/tklauser/empty-index-name
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
indexPosis executed for secondary indexes too. In case of a secondary index with an empty name we'll enter thisifreturning the primary index.I think we should explicitly reject secondary indexes with empty names in
NewTableAny.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 rejecting secondary indexes with empty names is a worthwhile change. Fixed as suggested.
But AFAICS it still won't fix the issue here in all cases because the name passed to
indexPosby callers may be the one extracted fromQuery.indexorQueryRequest.Indexand that could still be empty in some cases, depending on how the query was constructed.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 see.
Besides, looking again at the code I see that stateDB explicitly supports objects with an empty primary key (see
TestDB_EmptyKeys) and with this change it is possible to have something like this:Now suppose that this object with an empty primary key is in the table:
Then this query:
returns the stored testObject, despite the object we used to generate the query had a Key value equal to "unrelated" (IOW: from a primary key POV it should not match).
Even if I don't think it is dangerous, it feels inconsistent. Getting this right seems hard, that's why I wonder if we should instead return a "no-match" representation instead of steering an empty index name toward the primary index.
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, that's a good point. I didn't consider this in my original change. I agree that getting this right is rather tricky, so I'll move the PR to draft for now and will discuss it with @joamaki after he's back.