db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Satheesh Bandaram <sathe...@Sourcery.Org>
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 18:34:13 GMT
Sounds great! I think it is important to close both these bugs before
the 10.1 release. Post any questions you may have.

Satheesh

TomohitoNakayama wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message