cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: CAY-1378, CAY-1009...
Date Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:52:14 GMT

On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> If your analysis is correct, the patch at the very least should have  
> caused a failure somewhere in the test
> suite.

The test suite is not ideal. In fact it barely touches runtime  
relationships, working with bi-directional relationship graphs in most  
cases. We need to improve it, no question.

> I still really don't feel like I mapped my STI relationship  
> incorrectly.  It's the most natural way to do it.

The way you described it in this thread, it is indeed. And the thing  
is - in my tests this type of mapping works without CAY-1009 patch. So  
I wonder if the the actual failing mapping has some details not  
mentioned here. I'd appreciate if you dig up that failing mapping, so  
that we could inspect it.

For now I am going to commit my fix, reverting CAY-1009 + some minor  
refactoring + CAY-1378 test case. Since the controversial piece is  
just 3 lines of code in ObjRelationship, it should be easy to redo it  
one more time if we find a reason to do so.


View raw message