db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Army <qoz...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-491) Protocol exception when Network Server tries to return ~32K of data or greater in a result set for a Java stored procedure.
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:38:58 GMT
Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
>>Bryan Pendleton updated DERBY-491:
>>    Attachment: svn_jan_24_2006.diff

[ snip ]

> I read through your patch, ran derbynetclientmats and derbynetmats
> successfully, and verified that the test case failed without your
> patch (actually, it didn't fail, it just hung until I got bored and
> killed the test).

I too looked at the changes and they seem correct and well-documented.  I also 
ran the new tests with and without the patch applied: with the patch, they 
passed, without, the tests hung, so that's good.

My one nit-pick, though, is that it looks _both_ test cases result in a hang if 
the patch hasn't been applied.  That in itself isn't a bad thing, but based on 
the comments in the test and the error description for DERBY-491, I was 
expecting to see a protocol exception for the first test case (DERBY-491), not a 

My guess is that the fix for DERBY-125 and/or DERBY-170 have changed the 
symptoms of DERBY-491 from "protocol exception" to "hang"--and if that's the 
case, I have no complaints with the tests per se.  I do, however, think it's 
slightly non-intuitive to have comments in the test saying that the regression 
would be a protocol exception, when in fact, given the current state of the 
codeline, the regression would actually be a hang.

Of course, I'll admit that I'm perhaps being too picky.  You've identified the 
problem, written a fix, documented it very well, and have written test cases 
that fail without your fix and pass with it--so as far as all of that goes, I 
vote a definite +1 for commit.

That said, if you wouldn't mind updating the comments in the test and/or the 
Jira entry to match the current 491 regression behavior (or perhaps to mention 
that the regression for DERBY-491 could be _either_ a protocol exception or a 
hang, depending on the situation), I think that'd be useful.  Not obligatory, 
but useful...

Thanks for your patience with my picking,

View raw message