-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 659
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Issue with Nested Laterals #2924
Labels
Comments
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 7, 2025
…hecks on tables, enhanced QueryExec API for easier testing.
Open
3 tasks
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 7, 2025
…hecks on tables, enhanced QueryExec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 8, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 8, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 8, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 8, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 8, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 9, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 9, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 9, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 9, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 9, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 9, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 9, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 10, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 10, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 10, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Aklakan
added a commit
to Aklakan/jena
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2025
…ec API for easier testing.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Version
5.3.0-SNAPSHOT
What happened?
The following query reveals a bug where an unexpected exception is raised in
BindingBuilder.checkAdd
:Attempt to reassign ?s from 1 to 1
. The issue is inQueryIterLateral
which just adds the lhs and rhs binding to the builder although they may have variables in common.SELECT * { BIND(1 AS ?s) LATERAL { BIND(?s AS ?x) LATERAL { BIND(?s AS ?y) } } }
My proposed solution in the PR is to add a check whether bindings are compatible on their common variables.
(Edit: I removed the report about the issues I encountered with var scoping so that this issue can be closed independently.)
Relevant output and stacktrace
No response
Are you interested in making a pull request?
Yes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: