Java/C++/C#: Bugfix for field flow through reverse read. - #2473
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Yes, I think so.
…On Fri, 29 Nov 2019, 08:56 Jonas Jensen, ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** approved this pull request.
Thanks! LGTM.
@p0 <https://github.com/p0> Are you happy with putting this in 1.23?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2473>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANDFWXRE5MBU6X2LB3NR2FDQWDKMXANCNFSM4JS4TQAA>
.
|
Contributor
|
It'd be nice to add my test case for C++ too... |
Contributor
I can do that in a separate PR so we don't have to wait for the C# tests again. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The restriction of the
readrelation to only those fields that had astoreStepmade sense before we added support for treating reverse reads as stores, but it should have been removed when we added that step.Without this change the added test case would only exhibit flow to the first of the four sinks.
The first pruning step of the data-flow implementation already restricts reads to those for which a corresponding store has been seen during forward flow, so if no reverse reads are encountered this change shouldn't add any tuples to the data-flow pruning sequence.