Skip to content

Fix asc/desc keyword behavior for sort command #4651

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix asc/desc keyword behavior for sort command #4651

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

@ritvibhatt
Copy link
Contributor

@ritvibhatt ritvibhatt commented Oct 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Description

Fixed PPL sort command so that asc/desc keywords specify sort direction for individual fields instead of applying all fields in the sort command. (keywords work on individual fields ex sort field1 asc, field2 desc means field1 is ascending and field2 is descending) while preventing mixing of prefix (+/-) and suffix (asc/desc) syntax, and updated integration tests to match this behavior.

Files Changed

  • ppl/src/main/antlr/OpenSearchPPLParser.g4: Updated grammar rules for sort command to support individual field ASC/DESC keywords
  • ppl/src/main/java/org/opensearch/sql/ppl/parser/AstBuilder.java: Updated visitSortCommand() method to handle new ASC/DESC field syntax and prevent mixing of +/-and asc/desc sort syntax
  • ppl/src/main/java/org/opensearch/sql/ppl/parser/AstExpressionBuilder.java: Modified expression building logic for sort field parsing and ensure consistent sort direction syntax usage across all sort fields
  • ppl/src/main/java/org/opensearch/sql/ppl/utils/ArgumentFactory.java: Updated getSortArguments() method to process new field-level ASC/DESC syntax

Related Issues

Resolves #[Issue number to be closed when this PR is merged]

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing.
  • New functionality has been documented.
  • New functionality has javadoc added.
  • New functionality has a user manual doc added.
  • New PPL command checklist all confirmed.
  • API changes companion pull request created.
  • Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff or -s.
  • Public documentation issue/PR created.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

@ritvibhatt
update asc/desc behavior for sort
e4f55cf 
Signed-off-by: Ritvi Bhatt <[email protected]>
@ritvibhatt
fix both sort directions on same field error
3619cc3 
Signed-off-by: Ritvi Bhatt <[email protected]>
@ritvibhatt
fix formatting
eb6536e 
Signed-off-by: Ritvi Bhatt <[email protected]>
@ritvibhatt
fix tests
2c8f5ea 
Signed-off-by: Ritvi Bhatt <[email protected]>
@ritvibhatt
fix tests
aeb9fea 
Signed-off-by: Ritvi Bhatt <[email protected]>
@ritvibhatt
update failing tests
647cc90 
Signed-off-by: Ritvi Bhatt <[email protected]>
@LantaoJin LantaoJin added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 24, 2025
@ritvibhatt ritvibhatt changed the title Update asc/desc keyword behavior for sort command Fix asc/desc keyword behavior for sort command Oct 24, 2025
@ritvibhatt ritvibhatt marked this pull request as ready for review October 24, 2025 15:52
ykmr1224
ykmr1224 reviewed Oct 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
ppl/src/main/antlr/OpenSearchPPLParser.g4

sortField
: (PLUS | MINUS)? sortFieldExpression
: (PLUS | MINUS) sortFieldExpression (ASC | A | DESC | D) # invalidMixedSortField
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we need to define invalid syntax? wouldn't it fail parse without this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would fail the parse but added this to have a more clear error for when the two syntaxes are mixed

ykmr1224
ykmr1224 reviewed Oct 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
docs/user/ppl/cmd/sort.rst
* [asc|a|desc|d] (Since 3.3): optional. asc/a keeps the sort order as specified. desc/d reverses the sort results. If multiple fields are specified with desc/d, reverses order of the first field then for all duplicate values of the first field, reverses the order of the values of the second field and so on. **Default:** asc.

.. note::
You cannot mix +/- and asc/desc in the same sort command. Choose one approach for all fields in a single sort command.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need to prohibit this? Any concern to allow the mixture?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added because the syntax gets confusing if there's a lot of mixing of the 2 different syntaxes

ykmr1224
ykmr1224 reviewed Oct 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
ppl/src/main/java/org/opensearch/sql/ppl/parser/AstExpressionBuilder.java

UnresolvedExpression fieldExpression =
visit(ctx.sortFieldExpression().fieldExpression().qualifiedName());
private Field buildSortField(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is not critical, but please improve if you have capacity.
Following logics looks weird to me since visitPrefixSortField / visitSuffixSortField / visitDefaultSortField already know their type, but come to the same place and branch based on the context class.
I don't have clear idea to improve it, but I think there are better way to organize the code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah it is a bit confusing, I can take this up as a task in a follow up PR to improve the logic here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@ykmr1224 ykmr1224 ykmr1224 left review comments

@ps48 ps48 Awaiting requested review from ps48 ps48 is a code owner

@kavithacm kavithacm Awaiting requested review from kavithacm kavithacm is a code owner

@derek-ho derek-ho Awaiting requested review from derek-ho derek-ho is a code owner

@joshuali925 joshuali925 Awaiting requested review from joshuali925 joshuali925 is a code owner

@dai-chen dai-chen Awaiting requested review from dai-chen dai-chen is a code owner

@YANG-DB YANG-DB Awaiting requested review from YANG-DB YANG-DB is a code owner

@mengweieric mengweieric Awaiting requested review from mengweieric mengweieric is a code owner

@vamsimanohar vamsimanohar Awaiting requested review from vamsimanohar vamsimanohar is a code owner

@Swiddis Swiddis Awaiting requested review from Swiddis Swiddis is a code owner

@penghuo penghuo Awaiting requested review from penghuo penghuo is a code owner

@seankao-az seankao-az Awaiting requested review from seankao-az seankao-az is a code owner

@MaxKsyunz MaxKsyunz Awaiting requested review from MaxKsyunz MaxKsyunz is a code owner

@Yury-Fridlyand Yury-Fridlyand Awaiting requested review from Yury-Fridlyand Yury-Fridlyand is a code owner

@anirudha anirudha Awaiting requested review from anirudha anirudha is a code owner

@forestmvey forestmvey Awaiting requested review from forestmvey forestmvey is a code owner

@acarbonetto acarbonetto Awaiting requested review from acarbonetto acarbonetto is a code owner

@GumpacG GumpacG Awaiting requested review from GumpacG GumpacG is a code owner

@LantaoJin LantaoJin Awaiting requested review from LantaoJin LantaoJin is a code owner

@noCharger noCharger Awaiting requested review from noCharger noCharger is a code owner

@qianheng-aws qianheng-aws Awaiting requested review from qianheng-aws qianheng-aws is a code owner

@yuancu yuancu Awaiting requested review from yuancu yuancu is a code owner

@RyanL1997 RyanL1997 Awaiting requested review from RyanL1997 RyanL1997 is a code owner

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@ritvibhatt @ykmr1224 @LantaoJin