Skip to content

Conversation

@devbww
Copy link
Contributor

@devbww devbww commented Oct 28, 2025

Fixes #15234. Thanks to @strophy for the original analysis.

@devbww devbww requested a review from a team as a code owner October 28, 2025 22:17
@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added the api: spanner Issues related to the Spanner API. label Oct 28, 2025
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

Summary of Changes

Hello @devbww, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves an issue in the Spanner client library's ISO8601 interval parsing mechanism. It refactors the parsing logic to correctly handle the initial prefixes and the transition from date to time components, specifically by introducing a flag to manage the 'T' separator. This change prevents a subtle bug related to comparing iterators from different containers, enhancing the robustness and correctness of interval string interpretation.

Highlights

  • Refactored ISO8601 Interval Parsing: The logic for consuming the optional sign (+/-) and the mandatory 'P' prefix for ISO8601 intervals has been moved to the beginning of the ParseISO8601Interval function, improving clarity and ensuring correct initial parsing.
  • Introduced seen_T Flag: A new boolean flag, seen_T, was added to accurately track whether the 'T' separator (indicating the start of time components) has been encountered. This prevents redundant processing of the 'T' prefix.
  • Prevented Iterator Comparison Issue: The changes address a potential bug where iterators from different unit factory containers (kISO8601DateUnitFactories and kISO8601TimeUnitFactories) could have been implicitly compared. The refactoring ensures that iterators are only compared within their respective valid ranges, thus avoiding undefined behavior.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request effectively addresses a potential undefined behavior bug in the ISO 8601 interval parser. By replacing the comparison of iterators from different containers with a boolean flag, the code is now safer and more correct. Additionally, the change improves error handling for missing 'P' designators, making the parser more robust. The changes are clear and well-implemented. I've added one minor suggestion to improve code readability.

@scotthart
Copy link
Member

/gcbrun

scotthart
scotthart previously approved these changes Oct 28, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 28, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.10%. Comparing base (f3d1a89) to head (79eed6a).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #15665   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.10%   93.10%           
=======================================
  Files        2439     2439           
  Lines      224097   224097           
=======================================
+ Hits       208642   208648    +6     
+ Misses      15455    15449    -6     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@scotthart
Copy link
Member

/gcbrun

@scotthart scotthart merged commit be83b6c into googleapis:main Oct 29, 2025
62 of 66 checks passed
@scotthart
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR Brad!

@devbww devbww deleted the interval-8601-parse branch October 30, 2025 03:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

api: spanner Issues related to the Spanner API.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

spanner interval test fails on Alpine Linux Edge

3 participants