Just wanted to bump this thread up and let Andrus et al know I haven't
forgotten about it... I've just had trouble getting a CVS update from
SF :)
I finally got a complete update last night, so I should be able to
write a test case to assert the issue and resolve it.
Cris
On 1/25/06, Cris Daniluk <cris.danilu..mail.com> wrote:
> I'll open a bug report and see if I can't come up with a patch as well.
>
> Cris
>
> On 1/25/06, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/25/06, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> > >> So in your tests does a read-only object with "phantom" modification
> > >> blow on commit with an exception? If so, we need to open a bug report
> > >> and handle it in the commit code.
> > >
> > > Correct. What would the correct behavior be? To validate that the
> > > snapshots have not changed?
> > >
> > > Cris
> >
> > I would think so. Cayenne correctly detects "phantom" modifications
> > of non-read-only objects and doesn't issue bogus queries. So the
> > right algorithm is in place already. It maybe just a matter of
> > changing the order of read-only checks.
> >
> > Andrus
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Feb 02 2006 - 13:44:28 EST