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: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-319) Derby returns incorrect values for "LENGTH" column of DatabaseMetaData.getProcedureColumns() result set.
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:22:21 GMT
Patch is committed.

Satheesh

Sending        java\build\org\apache\derbyBuild\odbcgen_fragments.properties
Sending        java\engine\org\apache\derby\catalog\GetProcedureColumns.java
Sending        java\engine\org\apache\derby\catalog\TypeDescriptor.java
Sending       
java\engine\org\apache\derby\catalog\types\TypeDescriptorImpl.java
Sending       
java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\types\DataTypeDescriptor.java
Sending       
java\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\DerbyNet\metadata.out
Sending       
java\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\DerbyNet\odbc_metadata.out
Sending       
java\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\DerbyNetClient\metadata.out
Sending       
java\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\DerbyNetClient\odbc_metadata.out
Sending       
java\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\metadata.out
Sending       
java\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\master\odbc_metadata.out
Sending       
java\testing\org\apache\derbyTesting\functionTests\tests\jdbcapi\
metadata_test.java
Transmitting file data ............
Committed revision 189855.

Army wrote:

> David Van Couvering (JIRA) wrote:
>
>>     [
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-319?page=comments#action_12313084
>> ]
>> David Van Couvering commented on DERBY-319:
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> I took a look at this patch and it looks good, very clean and
>> well-documented.  Looks like you also covered
>> some types that were missing in the metadata test.
>
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review!
>
>> My only question was why some of the columns in the metadata test 
>> alltypes table, some of the columns have lots of underscores in
>> them.  I couldn't follow the logic for this.
>
>
> I see two columns that have extra underscores in them: "char8col___"
> and "char8forbitcol___".  Are these the columns you're referring to? 
> The first one was like that in the test before my patch--I don't know
> _why_ it was like that, but I didn't think it was something that
> needed to be changed.  The second one, which I added, has the extra
> underscores because I copied the first one and just added "forbitcol"
> to the name; I didn't think to remove to the extra underscores.
>
> So my answer to your question is "Umm...don't know".  But then again,
> since it doesn't hurt to have the underscores there, I'm not sure if
> this is something that we should bother changing?  Underscores are a
> valid part of a column name, so their presence seems acceptable to
> me...*shrug*
>
> If anyone believes that these column names _should_ be changed, then I
> can certainly go ahead and do so.  But personally, while they are a
> bit odd, I'm still okay with them being there...
>
> Thanks again for the review!
> Army
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message