Fix "Duplicate path found during parsing JSON object" clickhouse error

[ericallam]

No description provided.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: c5d7329

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A new test case was added to the "Task Runs V2" suite to verify that payloads with duplicate key paths can be inserted without error. Additionally, the ClickHouse setting type_json_skip_duplicated_paths: 1 was introduced to the insert operations in both insertTaskRuns and insertRawTaskRunPayloads functions. No changes were made to exported or public entity declarations, and no other logic or error handling was altered.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 35dedee and c5d7329.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• internal-packages/clickhouse/src/taskRuns.test.ts (1 hunks)
• internal-packages/clickhouse/src/taskRuns.ts (2 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (25)

• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (3, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (10, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (5, 8)
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (7, 8)
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (1, 8)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (9, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (7, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (4, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (3, 8)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (8, 10)
• GitHub Check: typecheck / typecheck
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (4, 8)
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (2, 8)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (6, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (5, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (2, 10)
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (8, 8)
• GitHub Check: e2e / 🧪 CLI v3 tests (ubuntu-latest - npm)
• GitHub Check: e2e / 🧪 CLI v3 tests (ubuntu-latest - pnpm)
• GitHub Check: e2e / 🧪 CLI v3 tests (windows-latest - npm)
• GitHub Check: units / internal / 🧪 Unit Tests: Internal (6, 8)
• GitHub Check: e2e / 🧪 CLI v3 tests (windows-latest - pnpm)
• GitHub Check: units / packages / 🧪 Unit Tests: Packages (1, 1)
• GitHub Check: units / webapp / 🧪 Unit Tests: Webapp (1, 10)
• GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

internal-packages/clickhouse/src/taskRuns.ts (2)

87-87: Consistent implementation across both insert functions.

Good implementation - the setting is applied consistently to both insertTaskRuns and insertRawTaskRunPayloads functions, ensuring uniform behavior for JSON handling.

---

62-62: Verify the ClickHouse setting is valid.

The implementation looks correct and consistent. However, please verify that type_json_skip_duplicated_paths is a valid ClickHouse setting for handling duplicate JSON paths.

What is the ClickHouse setting type_json_skip_duplicated_paths and what does it do?

internal-packages/clickhouse/src/taskRuns.test.ts (1)

348-396: Well-structured test for duplicate path handling.

The test case effectively validates the fix with a realistic scenario. The duplicate path structure (title.id as both nested object property and string key) is a good representation of the issue this PR addresses.

The test follows the established pattern and properly:

• Disables async_insert for deterministic testing
• Verifies successful insertion and retrieval
• Uses appropriate assertions

Consider adding a comment explaining the specific duplicate path scenario being tested for future maintainers.

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.