[bug](avro) fix avro jni reader coredump with nullptr

[zhangstar333]

What problem does this PR solve?

Problem Summary:
when fetch_table_schema call by FE rpc, will not pass runtime state object, so it's nullptr.
master branch have been refactor so it's no problem.

 1# PosixSignals::chained_handler(int, siginfo_t*, void*) [clone .part.0] at src/hotspot/os/posix/signals_posix.cpp:454
 2# JVM_handle_linux_signal at src/hotspot/os/posix/signals_posix.cpp:641
 3# 0x00007F93C27AB520 in /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
 4# _ZNSt4pairIKNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEES5_EC2IRA10_KcRS6_Qaacl16_S_constructibleITL0__TL0_0_EEntcl10_S_danglesISD_SE_EEEEOT_OT0_ 
at /root/tools/ldb-toolchain/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15/include/g++-v15/bits/stl_pair.h:464
 5# std::pair<std::_Rb_tree_iterator<std::pair<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const, std::__cxx11::basic_stri
ng<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > >, bool> std::_Rb_tree<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>
 >, std::pair<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, 
std::allocator<char> > >, std::_Select1st<std::pair<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const, std::__cxx11::basic
_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > >, std::less<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >,
 std::allocator<std::pair<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_tr
aits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > > >::_M_emplace_unique<char const (&) [10], std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>
 > const&>(char const (&) [10], std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&) at /root/tools/ldb-toolchain/bin/../li
b/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15/include/g++-v15/bits/stl_tree.h:3056
 6# doris::vectorized::JniConnector::open(doris::RuntimeState*, doris::RuntimeProfile*) at /root/selectdb-core/be/src/vec/exec/jni_connector.cpp:98
 7# doris::vectorized::AvroJNIReader::init_schema_reader() at /root/selectdb-core/be/src/vec/exec/format/avro/avro_jni_reader.cpp:123
 8# std::_Function_handler<void (), doris::PInternalService::fetch_table_schema(google::protobuf::RpcController*, doris::PFetchTableSchemaRequest const*, dori

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test
  • Unit Test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
    • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
    • Previous test can cover this change.
    • No code files have been changed.
    • Other reason

• Behavior changed:

  • No.
  • Yes.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.
  • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

• Confirm the release note
• Confirm test cases
• Confirm document
• Add branch pick label

[hello-stephen]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

[zhangstar333]

/review

[github-actions]

Codex automated review failed and did not complete.

Error: You've hit your usage limit. Visit https://chatgpt.com/codex/settings/usage to purchase more credits or try again at 11:44 AM.
Workflow run: https://github.com/apache/doris/actions/runs/27948545316

Please inspect the workflow logs and rerun the review after the underlying issue is resolved.

[zhangstar333]

/review

[github-actions]

Automated review completed for PR 64699.

Summary opinion: I found no substantiated blocking issue in this PR. The patch only guards insertion of time_zone in JniConnector::open() when RuntimeState* is null. The null-state path is the Avro schema-only reader, whose constructor sets _is_table_schema; Java Avro schema parsing does not consume time_zone, and normal scan paths still call open(_state, _profile) with a non-null state.

Critical checkpoints:

• Changed files: GitHub and local diff both report only be/src/exec/connector/jni_connector.cpp.
• Existing review context: no existing inline review comments or replies were present.
• Duplicate suppression: no prior inline thread or ledger candidate covered an issue requiring suppression.
• Correctness: no evidence of changed scan semantics outside the null-state Avro schema-fetch crash path.
• Session/config propagation: normal JNI scan paths still receive time_zone; schema-only Avro parsing does not require it.
• Tests/style: git diff --check on the changed file passed. I did not run a full build or regression suite because the patch is a narrow null guard.

Subagent conclusions:

• optimizer-rewrite: no candidate found; convergence round 1 returned NO_NEW_VALUABLE_FINDINGS.
• tests-session-config: no candidate found; convergence round 1 returned NO_NEW_VALUABLE_FINDINGS.
• No subagent candidates became inline comments, and none were dismissed as duplicates. Main dismissals are recorded in .code-review.r4svrC/subagent_review_findings.md.

User focus: no additional user-provided review focus was supplied.

Review instruction note: no repository-local SKILL.md code-review skill was present in this checkout, so the review followed the supplied .code-review.r4svrC/review_prompt.txt instructions and repository evidence.

[zhangstar333]

run buildall

[hello-stephen]

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 0.00% (0/3) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category	Coverage
Function Coverage	72.04% (26812/37220)
Line Coverage	55.12% (285656/518219)
Region Coverage	52.67% (238946/453680)
Branch Coverage	53.76% (102972/191534)