Skip to content

Conversation

def-
Copy link
Contributor

@def- def- commented Sep 18, 2025

My interpretation is that following
4b63360 we have a migration even when the version number doesn't change (v74 -> v74). This test specifically tests that the catalog stays the same, but this invariant isn't true anymore with this change.

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. (trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs)
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • If this PR includes major user-facing behavior changes, I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post.

My interpretation is that following
MaterializeInc@4b63360
we have a migration even when the version number doesn't change (v74 ->
v74). This test specifically tests that the catalog stays the same, but
this invariant isn't true anymore with this change.
@def- def- requested review from jubrad and SangJunBak September 18, 2025 10:59
@def- def- requested a review from a team as a code owner September 18, 2025 10:59
@def- def- added the self-managed-backport-v25.2 Needs to be backported into the v25.2 self-managed release label Sep 18, 2025
@jubrad
Copy link
Contributor

jubrad commented Sep 19, 2025

Sorry about that! I think it was probably still the right call given the predicament we were in, but I didn't realize we had this test.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
self-managed-backport-v25.2-done self-managed-backport-v25.2 Needs to be backported into the v25.2 self-managed release
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants