Chris, as I mentioned before, I've been sick since for the last week,
so I'm now quite far behind in my paying work. The only thing I can
suggest is trying your test against 1.2 and seeing if you see the same
behavior. I still suspect it might be a race condition, but I can't
investigate it myself. The original patch was against 1.1RC2, and as
far as I know, the problem hasn't popped back up in my application.
But maybe it wasn't fixed for all cases.
On 10/11/05, Cris Daniluk <cris.danilu..mail.com> wrote:
> I put a sleep before and after the invalidate, to be safe - still
> seeing the same behavior.
>
> A patch is attached with the test changes I made.
>
> On 10/11/05, Mike Kienenberger <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
> > One thing to keep in mind is that there's a race condition here. It
> > takes time to propagate the change.
> >
> > What happens if you put in a "sleep(5000)" after the invalidate?
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On 10/11/05, Cris Daniluk <cris.danilu..mail.com> wrote:
> > > Easier to explain through code probably...
> > >
> > > public void testInvalidateObjectsMergeSnapshots() throws Exception{
> > >
> > > TestCaseDataFactory.createArtist(
> > > "testInvalidateObjectsMergeSnapshots");
> > >
> > > DataContext altContext = createAltContext();
> > >
> > > // Retrieve the artist in both contexts...
> > > Artist artist = fetchArtist("testInvalidateObjectsMergeSnapshots");
> > > Artist altArtist =
> > > fetchArtist("testInvalidateObjectsMergeSnapshots", altContext);
> > >
> > > assertEquals(artist.getPersistenceState(),
> > > altArtist.getPersistenceState());
> > >
> > > Date now = new Date();
> > > artist.setDateOfBirth(now);
> > > altArtist.setArtistName("nameToAccept");
> > >
> > > altContext.commitChanges();
> > >
> > > context.invalidateObjects(Collections.singleton(artist));
> > > assertEquals("nameToAccept", artist.getArtistName());
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > This doesn't work. In other words, when I invalidate an object, it
> > > reverts to the original snapshot. It does NOT refresh the snapshot
> > > from the database.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/11/05, Mike Kienenberger <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
> > > > Not quite sure what you're asking. (Sorry for the late response, but
> > > > I've been sick).
> > > >
> > > > On 10/6/05, Cris Daniluk <cris.danilu..mail.com> wrote:
> > > > > While applying the patch for Cay-256 to the 1.1 branch, I noticed that
> > > > > it doesn't seem to be behaving as advertised. Basically, it seems like
> > > > > the invalidated object is falling back on its original snapshot,
> > > > > rather than refetching from the database.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this correct behavior? Based on the bug note in Cay-256, I'm led to
> > > > > believe otherwise..
> > > > >
> > > > > Cris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Oct 12 2005 - 13:10:14 EDT