Fix getBytesRef in ConstantBytesRefVector #136445
Merged
+17
−4
Conversation
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
dnhatn
added
>non-issue
auto-backport
|
Pinging @elastic/es-analytical-engine (Team:Analytics) |
elasticsearchmachine
added
the
Team:Analytics
ChrisHegarty
approved these changes
Oct 12, 2025
|
Thanks Chris! |
This was referenced Oct 13, 2025
dnhatn
added a commit
to dnhatn/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2025
We should not return the BytesRef directly from ConstantBytesRefBlock, but instead copy its slice to a scratch buffer. Although current usage does not modify the offset and length, the contract should allow callers to change these fields, as long as the content of the bytes array remains unchanged. The usage pattern below should be fine, but currently it can change ConstantBytesRefBlock.
dnhatn
added a commit
to dnhatn/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2025
We should not return the BytesRef directly from ConstantBytesRefBlock, but instead copy its slice to a scratch buffer. Although current usage does not modify the offset and length, the contract should allow callers to change these fields, as long as the content of the bytes array remains unchanged. The usage pattern below should be fine, but currently it can change ConstantBytesRefBlock.
dnhatn
added a commit
to dnhatn/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2025
We should not return the BytesRef directly from ConstantBytesRefBlock, but instead copy its slice to a scratch buffer. Although current usage does not modify the offset and length, the contract should allow callers to change these fields, as long as the content of the bytes array remains unchanged. The usage pattern below should be fine, but currently it can change ConstantBytesRefBlock.
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2025
We should not return the BytesRef directly from ConstantBytesRefBlock, but instead copy its slice to a scratch buffer. Although current usage does not modify the offset and length, the contract should allow callers to change these fields, as long as the content of the bytes array remains unchanged. The usage pattern below should be fine, but currently it can change ConstantBytesRefBlock.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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.
We should not return the BytesRef directly from ConstantBytesRefBlock, but instead copy its slice to a scratch buffer. Although current usage does not modify the offset and length, the contract should allow callers to change these fields, as long as the content of the bytes array remains unchanged. The usage pattern below should be fine, but currently it can change ConstantBytesRefBlock.