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-318(Re: DERBY-308 just be done and .... (Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-308) Modify dblook to support "GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY"))
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2005 10:30:05 GMT

Thank you for finishing DERBY-318 and 308 !

I had continued testing DERBY-318.

Before, I found errors in next three test with modification of DERBY-318.
derbyall/derbynetclientmats/DerbyNetClient/derbynetmats/derbynetmats/updatableResultSet derbyall/storeall/storemore/OnlineCompressTestI
ran derbyall without modification of DERBY-318 and error was found only in"updatableResultSet.diff".Hence
,errors in dataSourcePermissions_net and OnlineCompressTest.java ,might be caused by modification
of DERBY-318.To know much about errors,I ran tests with modification of DERBY-318 individually.However,
none of these test failed in individual testing.I conclude errors found in derbyall after
modification of DERBY-318  happenindeterminately and,they does not imply regression by DERBY-318.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: Satheesh Bandaram  To: Derby Development  Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:05 PM
 Suject: Re: DERBY-318(Re: DERBY-308 just be done and .... (Re: [jira]Updated: (DERBY-308)
Modify dblook to support "GENERATED BY DEFAULT ASIDENTITY"))  Hi Tomohito,  Once I applied
both your patches, I found some problems. The problemswere:    1.. We needed to update dblook_test_net.out
in both DerbyNet andDerbyNetClient directories.    2.. Found a small problem in dblook itself.
It was generating defaultinfo for identity columns also, since toString() now returnsGENERATED_BY_DEFAULT
string. dblook needed to be modified.  I applied the changes already. I think everything should
be fine now.Please look at my changes below. If they are incorrect, feel free to sendanother
patch. You can see the actual changes by: svn diff -r179707:179708  Satheesh  Sendingjava\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\DerbyNet\dblook_test_net.out
 Sendingjava\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\dblook_est.out  Sending
       java\tools\org\apache\derby\impl\tools\dblook\DB_Table.java  Transmitting file data
....  Committed revision 179708.  TomohitoNakayama wrote:    Hello.    Thank you.    I have
uploaded patch.    There found three error in result of derbyall.    I don't think they are
caused by my modification...    I will execute derbyall again and confirm it.    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: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:04 AM    Subject: Re: DERBY-318(Re: DERBY-308 just be done
and .... (Re: [jira]Updated: (DERBY-308) Modify dblook to support "GENERATED BY DEFAULT ASIDENTITY"))
     TomohitoNakayama wrote:        I concluded as next.        Thinking "GENERATED BY DEFAULT
AS IDENTITY" is a kind of default,       returning not null value for that column does not
cause problem.        On the contrast , returning null value for column of "GENERATED BYDEFAULT
AS IDENTITY"        may cause some inconsistency, because the column is a column withspecial
default value.      Well, a GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY column is also "a column withspecial
default value", and yet Derby currently returns null for the defaultof that kind of column.
 So to make GENERATED BY DEFAULT columns match thisbehavior (by returning null) is, I think,
the most consistent thing.      On the other hand, I agree that a non-null string such as"GENERATED_BY_DEFAULT"
has its benefits, as well.  Since no one else hascommented one way or the other, and since
I think we should get this issueresolved sooner rather than later, I think you can go ahead
and do thingsthe way you think is best.      So please feel free to make the change as you
prefer, and to post thepatch to the list so we can proceed.      Thanks!      Army      --
     No virus found in tis incoming message.      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.      Version:
7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 2005/06/01------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 No virus found in this incoming message.  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.  Version: 7.0.323 /
Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 2005/06/03
View raw message