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

[BugFix] add return type check in Java UDTF (backport #50615) #50641

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Sep 3, 2024

Why I'm doing:

*** SIGSEGV (@0x228) received by PID 1463834 (TID 0x7f75201bc640) from PID 552; stack trace: ***
    @     0x7f767c211ee8 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x99ee7)
    @          0xc55e3a9 google::(anonymous namespace)::FailureSignalHandler(int, siginfo_t*, void*)
    @     0x7f767cee101d os::Linux::chained_handler(int, siginfo_t*, void*)
    @     0x7f767cee5d49 JVM_handle_linux_signal
    @     0x7f767ced91f8 signalHandler(int, siginfo_t*, void*)
    @     0x7f767c1ba520 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x4251f)
    @     0x7f767ccb7924 jni_invoke_nonstatic(JNIEnv_*, JavaValue*, _jobject*, JNICallType, _jmethodID*, JNI_ArgumentPusher*, Thread*) [clone .constprop.233]
    @     0x7f767ccc1579 jni_CallLongMethodV
    @          0x56d9f6f JNIEnv_::CallLongMethod(_jobject*, _jmethodID*, ...)
    @          0x8a30313 starrocks::append_jvalue(starrocks::MethodTypeDescriptor, starrocks::Column*, jvalue)
    @          0x78c5cbd starrocks::JavaUDTFFunction::process(starrocks::RuntimeState*, starrocks::TableFunctionState*) const
    @          0x5b2514e starrocks::pipeline::TableFunctionOperator::_process_table_function(starrocks::RuntimeState*)
    @          0x5b266ea starrocks::pipeline::TableFunctionOperator::pull_chunk(starrocks::RuntimeState*)
    @          0x5abff76 starrocks::pipeline::PipelineDriver::process(starrocks::RuntimeState*, int)
    @          0x5aad0db starrocks::pipeline::GlobalDriverExecutor::_worker_thread()
    @          0x8b62fd4 starrocks::ThreadPool::dispatch_thread()
    @          0x8b5c0f9 starrocks::Thread::supervise_thread(void*)
    @     0x7f767c20cac3 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x94ac2)
    @     0x7f767c29e850 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x12684f)

What I'm doing:

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

  • I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
    • 3.3
    • 3.2
    • 3.1
    • 3.0
    • 2.5

This is an automatic backport of pull request #50615 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com). ## Why I'm doing:
*** SIGSEGV (@0x228) received by PID 1463834 (TID 0x7f75201bc640) from PID 552; stack trace: ***
    @     0x7f767c211ee8 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x99ee7)
    @          0xc55e3a9 google::(anonymous namespace)::FailureSignalHandler(int, siginfo_t*, void*)
    @     0x7f767cee101d os::Linux::chained_handler(int, siginfo_t*, void*)
    @     0x7f767cee5d49 JVM_handle_linux_signal
    @     0x7f767ced91f8 signalHandler(int, siginfo_t*, void*)
    @     0x7f767c1ba520 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x4251f)
    @     0x7f767ccb7924 jni_invoke_nonstatic(JNIEnv_*, JavaValue*, _jobject*, JNICallType, _jmethodID*, JNI_ArgumentPusher*, Thread*) [clone .constprop.233]
    @     0x7f767ccc1579 jni_CallLongMethodV
    @          0x56d9f6f JNIEnv_::CallLongMethod(_jobject*, _jmethodID*, ...)
    @          0x8a30313 starrocks::append_jvalue(starrocks::MethodTypeDescriptor, starrocks::Column*, jvalue)
    @          0x78c5cbd starrocks::JavaUDTFFunction::process(starrocks::RuntimeState*, starrocks::TableFunctionState*) const
    @          0x5b2514e starrocks::pipeline::TableFunctionOperator::_process_table_function(starrocks::RuntimeState*)
    @          0x5b266ea starrocks::pipeline::TableFunctionOperator::pull_chunk(starrocks::RuntimeState*)
    @          0x5abff76 starrocks::pipeline::PipelineDriver::process(starrocks::RuntimeState*, int)
    @          0x5aad0db starrocks::pipeline::GlobalDriverExecutor::_worker_thread()
    @          0x8b62fd4 starrocks::ThreadPool::dispatch_thread()
    @          0x8b5c0f9 starrocks::Thread::supervise_thread(void*)
    @     0x7f767c20cac3 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x94ac2)
    @     0x7f767c29e850 (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x12684f)

What I'm doing:

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Signed-off-by: stdpain <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit f147df2)

# Conflicts:
#	test/sql/test_udf/R/test_jvm_udf
#	test/sql/test_udf/T/test_jvm_udf
@mergify mergify bot added the conflicts label Sep 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Sep 3, 2024

Cherry-pick of f147df2 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/branch-3.0/pr-50615
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/branch-3.0'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit f147df24a8.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   be/src/exprs/table_function/java_udtf_function.cpp
	modified:   be/src/udf/java/java_data_converter.cpp
	modified:   be/src/udf/java/java_data_converter.h
	modified:   be/src/udf/java/java_udf.cpp
	modified:   be/src/udf/java/java_udf.h

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add/rm <file>..." as appropriate to mark resolution)
	deleted by us:   test/sql/test_udf/R/test_jvm_udf
	deleted by us:   test/sql/test_udf/T/test_jvm_udf

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

@mergify mergify bot mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2024
24 tasks
@wanpengfei-git wanpengfei-git enabled auto-merge (squash) September 3, 2024 13:54
@mergify mergify bot closed this Sep 3, 2024
auto-merge was automatically disabled September 3, 2024 13:54

Pull request was closed

Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Sep 3, 2024

@mergify[bot]: Backport conflict, please reslove the conflict and resubmit the pr

@mergify mergify bot deleted the mergify/bp/branch-3.0/pr-50615 branch September 3, 2024 13:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant