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

[PLAT-111995] detect and prevent polluted data return to user #51

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 7, 2024

Conversation

jnyi
Copy link
Collaborator

@jnyi jnyi commented Jul 5, 2024

This will invalidate Series request if the returned results doesn't match what it actually wants. Also we will dedup based on smaller values.

  • I added CHANGELOG entry for this change.
  • Change is not relevant to the end user.

Changes

Verification

@jnyi jnyi force-pushed the PLAT-111995-ooo branch from 09d2615 to 121d513 Compare July 5, 2024 20:57
@jnyi jnyi requested review from yuchen-db and christopherzli July 5, 2024 21:35
@jnyi jnyi force-pushed the PLAT-111995-ooo branch 2 times, most recently from 36f5292 to c336a1e Compare July 5, 2024 21:41
Copy link

@yuchen-db yuchen-db left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. do we short-circuit the data if we find it corrputed?

@jnyi jnyi changed the title [PLAT-111995] detect and prevent polluted data to return to user [PLAT-111995] detect and prevent polluted data return to user Jul 5, 2024
@jnyi jnyi force-pushed the PLAT-111995-ooo branch from c336a1e to f66a0fa Compare July 7, 2024 02:32
@jnyi jnyi force-pushed the PLAT-111995-ooo branch from f66a0fa to 1ec9240 Compare July 7, 2024 04:30
@jnyi jnyi merged commit e2cca9c into databricks:db_main Jul 7, 2024
12 checks passed
Comment on lines +19 to +21
if v == "" {
continue
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This branch means the time series doesn't have this label, but the matches (filters) have. The workflow should go to do a match against the default empty string. Otherwise, it would cause the following false negative.

lbls = {"a": "b"}

matches = [ {Name: "b", Type: LabelMatcher_EQ, Value: "x" }]

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

emm, i think i added this due to a unit test failure, let me figure out what happened.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

test it here: #57

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.

3 participants