VReplication: Support for BETWEEN/NOT BETWEEN filter in VStream

[beingnoble03]

Description

This PR adds support for BETWEEN filter in VStream.

Related Issue(s)

• Feature Request: Add VStream Filter support for BETWEEN and ISNULL #17682

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 78.04878% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.45%. Comparing base (4c27ea8) to head (2a71721).
Report is 28 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../vt/vttablet/tabletserver/vstreamer/planbuilder.go	78.04%	18 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17721      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.97%   67.45%   -0.52%     
==========================================
  Files        1586     1592       +6     
  Lines      255195   258145    +2950     
==========================================
+ Hits       173468   174142     +674     
- Misses      81727    84003    +2276     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[beingnoble03]

Tested this locally using the example local cluster.

[mattlord]

This is looking really good. Nice work on this so far!

Can you please look at the TestVStreamPushdownFilters endtoend test in go/test/endtoend/vreplication/vstream_test.go? We should add to that (additional test cases) or mimic it. This way we have an end to end test that covers both the copy phase (rowstreamer filtering) and the running phase (vstreamer filtering).

Please let me know if I can be of any help!

[rohit-nayak-ps]

@beingnoble03 let's update the website docs for this: https://vitess.io/docs/22.0/reference/vreplication/materialize/ (https://github.com/vitessio/website). Also check if we need to update that doc with the newly supported filter predicates since the docs were last updated.

[rohit-nayak-ps]

This is looking really good. Nice work on this so far!

Can you please look at the TestVStreamPushdownFilters endtoend test in go/test/endtoend/vreplication/vstream_test.go? We should add to that (additional test cases) or mimic it. This way we have an end to end test that covers both the copy phase (rowstreamer filtering) and the running phase (vstreamer filtering).

Please let me know if I can be of any help!

I see there is an additional e2e test added now just for the between filter and pushdown functionality. We should be testing this in unit tests and not adding a full new e2e test for each type of filter. It will become very expensive in terms of CI times. Is there already a unit test what was added for the validating pushdown filters? If so we can add between to that. If not is can we create one?

[rohit-nayak-ps]

@beingnoble03 I was testing locally and was trying a more complex filter expression and then thought it would be useful to add permanently to the existing ones. So took the liberty of pushing it to the PR.

[beingnoble03]

I see there is an additional e2e test added now just for the between filter and pushdown functionality. We should be testing this in unit tests and not adding a full new e2e test for each type of filter. It will become very expensive in terms of CI times. Is there already a unit test what was added for the validating pushdown filters? If so we can add between to that. If not is can we create one?

Thanks Rohit for the additional unit test. Unit tests for pushdown filters(for the case of BETWEEN) were added in this commit: 8c477c7

[rohit-nayak-ps]

I see there is an additional e2e test added now just for the between filter and pushdown functionality. We should be testing this in unit tests and not adding a full new e2e test for each type of filter. It will become very expensive in terms of CI times. Is there already a unit test what was added for the validating pushdown filters? If so we can add between to that. If not is can we create one?

Thanks Rohit for the additional unit test. Unit tests for pushdown filters(for the case of BETWEEN) were added in this commit: 8c477c7

Sorry, had missed that unit test change.

@mattlord since unit tests cover it do we need a new e2e test just for this filter? I would suggest removing the new one that was created in this PR .

[rohit-nayak-ps]

Other than a minor refactor suggestion and the issue about the extra e2e tests being discussed in comments, this looks good.

[rohit-nayak-ps]

Please extract the two identical code blocks for from and to.

[beingnoble03]

done.

[mattlord]

Excellent work on this @beingnoble03 !

@mattlord since unit tests cover it do we need a new e2e test just for this filter? I would suggest removing the new one that was created in this PR .

Yeah, now that I look at the new tests... I don't think they really give us anything more than we have with the existing TestVStreamPushdownFilters test and the new unit tests. @beingnoble03 , I'm sorry, but do you mind keeping the minor refactor you did in the e2e test file and removing the two new tests?

[beingnoble03]

@mattlord done.