db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "TomohitoNakayama" <tomon...@basil.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject Re: DERBY-308 just be done and .... (Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-308) Modify dblook to support "GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY")
Date Fri, 27 May 2005 10:33:06 GMT
Hello.

Reading series of other mail "Running derbyall before submitting patches",
I'm very sorry for DERBY-318....

If possible , I want to work for DERBY-318 before DERBY-308 ....

Best regards.

/*

         Tomohito Nakayama
         tomonaka@basil.ocn.ne.jp
         tomohito@rose.zero.ad.jp

         Naka
         http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html

*/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Army" <qozinx@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: DERBY-308 just be done and .... (Re: [jira] Updated: 
(DERBY-308) Modify dblook to support "GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY")


> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I have just done DERBY-308.
>> I uploaded patch just for reviewing.
>
> Hi Tomohito,
>
> Thanks for looking at this so quickly.  A couple of comments on the patch:
>
> First and most importanly:
>
> It looks like you have run the dblook_test for embedded mode and have 
> updated the master, which is great.  But I think the equivalent master 
> updates for the server tests are missing.  In particular, I think it'd be 
> good to run the "derbynet/dblook_test_net.java" test against the Network 
> Server and update the master files accordingly.  There are two masters, 
> one for the test with JCC and one for the test with the Derby Network 
> Client.
>
> The reason I list this as "most importantly" is because when I myself 
> tried to run dblook_test_net against the server, I got a DRDA protocol 
> exception with the "GENERATED BY DEFAULT" column.  I looked into this some 
> more and, after removing your patch, I was able to figure out that the 
> problem isn't with your DERBY-308 patch so much as with GENERATED BY 
> DEFAULT columns in general.  I will file a separate JIRA defect for that 
> problem next--but in the meantime, I think this is a good example of why 
> we need to run tests against the server as much as possible.
>
> My second (minor) comment on the patch is that it appears to contain 
> Japanese characters at the top of each file's diff.  I think it's Japanese 
> for the words "revision" and "working copy".  The patch still applies in 
> my codeline without problem, but I think it might be safer to try to 
> remove those characters from the patch before submitting, if that's 
> possible...?
>
> I will file a JIRA entry for the DRDA protocol problem I mentioned above. 
> You may want to wait until that protocol issue can be resolved before 
> proceeding with this DERBY-308 patch...
>
> Army
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.17 - Release Date: 2005/05/25
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.0.0 - Release Date: 2005/05/27


Mime
View raw message