Skip to content

Conversation

@wenyihu6
Copy link
Contributor

@wenyihu6 wenyihu6 commented Dec 3, 2025

Based on top of #158393. Only the last 5 commits.


Epic: CRDB-55052
Release note: none


mmaprototype: add more error cases test coverage


mmaprototype: improve comment on relationship


mma: additional case for non-intersecting conjunctions

A=[+region=a, +zone=a1], B=[+region=a, +zone=a2] is now classified as
non-intersecting. This fixes an existing todo.


mmaprototype: fix conjNonIntersecting

Previously, we started returning conjNonIntersecting when we encounter
same type, same key, different values. However, the fix only returned
early if the differing value is encountered from cc. This commit changed
it so that we also check and return early for b.


mmaprototype: add test cases for conjNonIntersecting

@wenyihu6 wenyihu6 changed the title mmaprototype: add assertion on emptyVoterConstraintIndex mmaprototype: add more error cases test coverage Dec 3, 2025
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@wenyihu6 wenyihu6 changed the title mmaprototype: add more error cases test coverage mmaprototype: add more error cases in TestNormalizedVoterAllRelationships Dec 3, 2025
wenyihu6 and others added 4 commits December 2, 2025 22:20
A=[+region=a, +zone=a1], B=[+region=a, +zone=a2] is now classified as
non-intersecting. This fixes an existing todo.

Epic: CRDB-55052

Release note: None

# Conflicts:
#	pkg/kv/kvserver/allocator/mmaprototype/constraint.go
Previously, we started returning conjNonIntersecting when we encounter
same type, same key, different values. However, the fix only returned
early if the differing value is encountered from cc. This commit changed
it so that we also check and return early for b.
@wenyihu6 wenyihu6 marked this pull request as ready for review December 3, 2025 03:43
@wenyihu6 wenyihu6 requested review from a team as code owners December 3, 2025 03:43
@wenyihu6 wenyihu6 requested review from sumeerbhola and tbg December 3, 2025 03:43
@wenyihu6
Copy link
Contributor Author

wenyihu6 commented Dec 3, 2025

@sumeerbhola I ended up cherry-picking your commit and added more tests as part of the work. So I will close #158380 in favor of this one if it looks good to you.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 3, 2025

Potential Bug(s) Detected

The three-stage Claude Code analysis has identified potential bug(s) in this PR that may warrant investigation.

Next Steps:
Please review the detailed findings in the workflow run.

Note: When viewing the workflow output, scroll to the bottom to find the Final Analysis Summary.

After you review the findings, please tag the issue as follows:

  • If the detected issue is real or was helpful in any way, please tag the issue with O-AI-Review-Real-Issue-Found
  • If the detected issue was not helpful in any way, please tag the issue with O-AI-Review-Not-Helpful

@github-actions github-actions bot added the o-AI-Review-Potential-Issue-Detected AI reviewer found potential issue. Never assign manually—auto-applied by GH action only. label Dec 3, 2025
@wenyihu6
Copy link
Contributor Author

wenyihu6 commented Dec 3, 2025

Closing in favor of #158722.

Opened a new PR since this one hasn’t been reviewed yet, which should make reviewable cleaner given my rebase.

@wenyihu6 wenyihu6 closed this Dec 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

o-AI-Review-Potential-Issue-Detected AI reviewer found potential issue. Never assign manually—auto-applied by GH action only.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants