[PR] Fix ResultSetMetaData.getCatalogName throwing IndexOutOfBoundsException instead of SQLException for out-of-range columns [iotdb]

["PDGGK (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

PDGGK opened a new pull request, #18242:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/18242

   ## Description
   
   `IoTDBResultMetadata.getCatalogName` read `columnInfoList.get(column - 1)` before its range check, so an out-of-range column index threw a raw `IndexOutOfBoundsException` instead of the `SQLException` required by the `ResultSetMetaData` contract (the range check was therefore unreachable). This calls `checkColumnIndex(column)` first — as the seven sibling accessors in the class already do — and removes the now-redundant inline range check. `checkColumnIndex` is a strict superset of that check (it also rejects an empty column list) and throws a proper `SQLException`.
   
   A test is added asserting that an out-of-range column throws `SQLException` rather than `IndexOutOfBoundsException`, and that a valid column is unaffected.
   
   This closes #18241.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscribe@iotdb.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

Re: [PR] Fix ResultSetMetaData.getCatalogName throwing IndexOutOfBoundsException instead of SQLException for out-of-range columns [iotdb]

["PDGGK (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

PDGGK commented on PR #18242:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/18242#issuecomment-5226503056

   A mechanical note rather than anything about the change itself.
   
   Every workflow run on this PR is sitting in `action_required`, so the PR shows
   no checks at all. That is the fork-PR approval gate rather than something
   failing -- a maintainer clicking **Approve and run** is what produces a result.
   Worth saying out loud because a PR with no CI reasonably reads as unfinished,
   which is a sufficient explanation for it sitting here without anyone having
   overlooked it.
   
   Separately: the branch is now about 106 commits behind master, though still
   conflict-free. Happy to rebase if that is useful -- but to be clear it would not
   unblock the checks, since the new head would produce runs needing the same
   approval.
   
   No urgency from my side; flagging it in case it is simply queued and unnoticed.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscribe@iotdb.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org