Skip to content

branch-4.1: [fix](test) Stabilize lineage skip internal schema test #65235 - #65511

Merged
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-65235-branch-4.1
Jul 13, 2026
Merged

branch-4.1: [fix](test) Stabilize lineage skip internal schema test #65235#65511
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-65235-branch-4.1

Conversation

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-picked from #65235

Related PR: #61004 

Problem Summary:

`LineageUtilsSkipTest.testSkipInternalSchemaInsert` could fail
intermittently in FE UT with `Failed to acquire catalog lock. Try
again`.

Root cause: In `LineageUtilsSkipTest.beforeCluster()`, the test enabled
`FeConstants.enableInternalSchemaDb` before the mocked FE cluster
started.
This allowed the background `InternalSchemaInitializer` to run during
test
startup. The background initializer and the test method both performed
DDL,
so they could race on the catalog lock used by
`InternalCatalog.createDb()`.

This PR keeps the background internal schema initializer disabled for
the
unit test and creates the required internal schema synchronously in
`runBeforeAll()`.

| File | Change Description |
|------|--------------------|
| `LineageUtilsSkipTest.java` | Stop enabling the background internal
schema initializer, create the internal schema synchronously before the
test body, and remove duplicate per-test initialization. |
@github-actions
github-actions Bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner July 13, 2026 03:32
@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage `` 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@yiguolei
yiguolei merged commit 6093c5a into branch-4.1 Jul 13, 2026
29 of 33 checks passed
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