Skip to content

branch-4.1: [fix](paimon) Correct pruned struct field reads #66223 - #66245

Open
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-66223-branch-4.1
Open

branch-4.1: [fix](paimon) Correct pruned struct field reads #66223#66245
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-66223-branch-4.1

Conversation

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-picked from #66223

## Proposed changes

- Preserve the full Paimon `RowType` arity when reading projected struct
fields.
- Add unit coverage for non-leading, non-contiguous, and complete struct
projections backed by a binary row.

## Problem summary

Struct projection entries use original child indexes, but the scanner
initialized the nested binary row with the number of projected fields. A
projection such as the third child therefore created a one-field row and
then accessed index two, producing incorrect reads or an out-of-bounds
failure.

## Regression coverage

- `testUnpackNonLeadingStructField` constructs a three-field binary row
and projects only original field index 2. The previous implementation
fails with `index (2) should < 1`.
- `testUnpackNonContiguousStructFields` projects original field indexes
0 and 2. The previous implementation fails with `index (2) should < 2`.
- `testUnpackCompleteStruct` protects the existing full-struct behavior.
- With this fix restored, all three tests pass with Maven build caching
disabled.

## Validation

- Reverted the row-arity fix locally and confirmed that the two
pruned-field regression tests fail.
- Restored the fix and reran the same test class: 3 tests, 0 failures, 0
errors.
- Ran all Paimon scanner test classes with Maven build caching disabled:
15 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors.
- Checkstyle passed for the affected reactor modules.
@github-actions
github-actions Bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner July 29, 2026 14:12
@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?

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE Regression Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100% (0/0) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

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