[jira] [Created] (CALCITE-7129) Check all non-default rule configuration are annotated with @RuleConfig

["Alessandro Solimando (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

Alessandro Solimando created CALCITE-7129:
---------------------------------------------

             Summary: Check all non-default rule configuration are annotated with @RuleConfig
                 Key: CALCITE-7129
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-7129
             Project: Calcite
          Issue Type: Improvement
          Components: tests
    Affects Versions: 1.40.0
            Reporter: Alessandro Solimando


In the context of CALCITE-7125, I have introduced a variant of [IntersectToDistinctRule|https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/4fa0d5bbe987c4ae0779ca434fb71e1ae8637b77/core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/rel/rules/IntersectToDistinctRule.java] with a non-default configuration.

When trying to use the rule with the new instructions for iq tests introduced in CALCITE-6335 (and refined in CALCITE-6998 to support rules with multiple configurations), the default configuration was being picked up, _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_ instead of that of _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_NO_AGGREGATE_PUSHDOWN_, and it took me a while to realize what was happening.

Basically, I forgot to add the "@RuleConfig" annotation to the non-standard configuration of _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_NO_AGGREGATE_PUSHDOWN_, and the test was silently using that of _CoreRules.INTERSECT_TO_DISTINCT_ instead, I noticed only because I was specifically looking at plan differences between the two.

Not sure it's doable easily, but ideally we should have a check somewhere that is throwing an error if multiple variants of the same rule are present, and the non-default configuration lacks the required annotation.

I am not sure, but more rules currently used might suffer from this problem.




--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)