Hi Bernd,
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/derby_downloads.html#How+to+test+Derby
http://incubator.apache.org/derby/derby_comm.html#Contribute+Code+or+Documentation
I above links have some info you are looking for.
thanks
Shreyas
Bernd Ruehlicke (JIRA) wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-147?page=comments#action_61494 ]
>
>Bernd Ruehlicke commented on DERBY-147:
>---------------------------------------
>
>I fixed it as Satheesh suggested. I have tested it in our location and it seams to work.
>I have not have time to
>
>1) Write Tests
>2) Figure out how to check it into the trunk
>
>I would like to work on this asap - it would help with just a few "dummy" steps how and
from where to check out the file, check it back in. And where teh JUnit tests should be checked
into.
>
>Bernd
>
>
>
>>ERROR 42X79 not consistant ? - same column name specified twice
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: DERBY-147
>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-147
>> Project: Derby
>> Type: Bug
>> Reporter: Bernd Ruehlicke
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>This happens from JDBC or ij. Here the output form ij>
>>ij version 10.0
>>CONNECTION0* - jdbc:derby:phsDB
>>* = current connection
>>ij> select a1.XXX_foreign, a1.native, a1.kind, a1.XXX_foreign FROM slg_name_lookup
a1 ORDER BY a1.XXX_foreign;
>>ERROR 42X79: Column name 'XXX_FOREIGN' appears more than once in the result of the
query expression.
>>But when removing the ORDER BY and keeping the 2 same column names it works
>>ij> select a1.XXX_foreign, a1.native, a1.kind, a1.XXX_foreign FROM slg_name_lookup
a1;
>>XXX_FOREIGN |NATIVE
|KIND
|XXX_FOREIGN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>0 rows selected
>>ij>
>>So - it seams to be OK to specify the same column twice - as long as you do not add
the ORDER BY clause.
>>I woul dof course like that the system allows this - but at leats it should be consistant
and either allow both or none of the two queries above.
>>
>>
>
>
>
|