Skip to content

[branch-4.1](regression) remove unstable variant array profile case#65123

Open
shuke987 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:branch-4.1from
shuke987:fix-branch41-remove-variant-array-profile
Open

[branch-4.1](regression) remove unstable variant array profile case#65123
shuke987 wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:branch-4.1from
shuke987:fix-branch41-remove-variant-array-profile

Conversation

@shuke987

@shuke987 shuke987 commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

Backport the cleanup from #64608 to branch-4.1 by removing the unstable legacy variant profile case:

  • regression-test/suites/variant_p0/with_index/test_array_inverted_index_profile.groovy
  • regression-test/data/variant_p0/with_index/test_array_inverted_index_profile.out

This case is muted/flaky in NonConcurrent Regression. In build 980611 it failed while the TeamCity build was still marked SUCCESS because the test occurrence was muted. The failure comes from the array_func.array_contains debug point path:

array_contains has already execute inverted index req_id 0, should not execute expr with rows: 7

The same unstable case was already removed on master by #64608, but that commit is not present in branch-4.1 and the old case files still exist there.

Testing

  • git diff --check origin/branch-4.1..HEAD
  • Verified the diff only deletes the legacy unstable case and its .out file

…Idx_profile (apache#64608)

Remove
`regression-test/suites/variant_p0/with_index/test_array_inverted_index_profile.groovy`
and its data file.

This case has been tracked as a flaky/unstable case for a while. Per dev
team's analysis and conclusion, the profile-fetching path this test
depends on is unstable, and the relevant logic should be covered by unit
tests going forward instead of this profile-dependent regression test.
@shuke987 shuke987 requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner July 1, 2026 12:44
@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@shuke987

shuke987 commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

run buildall

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants