Tarball of test case is attached to ticket. I'll try to debug it, but I
might get busy this afternoon. I enclosed some logs and the relevant
schema diagram in the tarball which might give you some ideas (shows
runs with M9-M12).
Thanks,
/dev/mrg
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:42 AM
To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Final release?
> Would you like a tarball of it?
I suggest opening a Jira issue and attaching the tarball to it
(unless there is business-sensitive info in the model?)
> I can look into it, too.
If you want to take a lead on that, please do. But I'll be willing to
help at any moment, as I really want to get 1.2 out asap.
Andrus
On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
> OK, I now have a standalone test. The original application would
> throw
> an exception with a Sybase backend. My test case throws the same
> exception with a PostgreSQL backend, so we can eliminate the binary
> key
> wackiness from the equation. My gut feeling is inheritance has
> something to do with it, since my non-inheritance test didn't fail,
> but
> it is only a gut feeling.
>
> Would you like a tarball of it? I can look into it, too.
>
> Thanks,
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org]
> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:05 PM
> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Final release?
>
>
> Mike, would it be possible to create a small standalone unit test to
> reproduce this?
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
>
>> I hate to be a party pooper, but I have another concern ...
>>
>> Now that I can insert again (thanks!), I run into this problem.
>> Given:
>>
>> CollectionElement ->> Item <<- Notification
>>
>> If I insert an Item (it is just a many-to-many linkage table) in one
>> request, and then immediately delete it again in the next request,
>> I am
>> getting optimistic locking exceptions. If I restart the app, I can
>> then
>> go in and delete it. Here are some of the logs when doing the
>> delete:
>>
>>
>> item (starting out):
>> PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>> identifier=[..d5543>; committed;
>> [collectionElement=>{<ObjectId:PSLocalCollectionElement,
>> identifier=[..6c157>}; moniker=>ES;
>> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[..36b89>}]}
>>
>> collectionElement.removeFromItems(item);
>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>> identifier=[..d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
>> moniker=>ES;
>> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[..36b89>}]}
>>
>> notification.removeFromItems(item);
>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>> identifier=[..d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
>> moniker=>ES;
>> notification=>null]}
>>
>> dataContext.deleteObject(item);
>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>> identifier=[..d5543>; deleted; [collectionElement=>null;
>> moniker=>ES;
>> notification=>null]}
>>
>> dataContext.commitChanges();
>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - DELETE FROM PS_Item
>> WHERE
>> identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND
>> objectPID IS
>> NULL
>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - [bind: < 00 00 00 00
>> 00 00
>> 00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, NULL, 'ES', NULL]
>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - *** error.
>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.OptimisticLockException: [v.1.2M12
>> March
>> 23 2006] Optimistic Lock Failure, SQL: [DELETE FROM PS_Item WHERE
>> identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND
>> objectPID IS
>> NULL], WHERE clause bindings: [moniker='ES', identifier=< 00 00 00
>> 00 00
>> 00 00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, objectPID=NULL, elementPID=NULL]
>>
>>
>> Ignore the 1.2M12 -- I'm running against the latest from Subversion
>> within Eclipse (guess that M12 the last time I did a full build using
>> ant). The bind output is also misleading -- 4 values for 2 ?'s (I
>> thought I fixed that at one point, but maybe that was for UPDATE
>> only).
>> Anyway, this code used to work in 1.2M9 (and earlier). I use
>> optimistic
>> locking on everything, but there are no cascade/etc delete rules.
>>
>> I'll experiment/debug more, just thought I'd report it in case you
>> were
>> trying to put out the release.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> /dev/mrg
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org
>> <mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org> ]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:33 AM
>> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Final release?
>>
>>
>> Let's at least submit this as a bug. I think I may have an older
>> Linux box where I can put Sybase and play with a solution that I had
>> in mind.
>>
>> In any event whatever fix we end up with, it should be possible to
>> stick it in a custom PkGenerator, so it shouldn't be a problem for
>> 1.2 users if it goes in release 3.0 (and we can port it to 1.2.1 as
>> well).
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
>>> My biggest concern right now is the Sybase PK question. If I can
>>> get
>>> our DBA (who is out right now) to set me up a playground somewhere,
>>> I'll
>>> test it. Of course, we could decide to handle that as a bug fix,
>>> too.
>>> Either way, I won't be upgrading past M9 for a bit ...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> /dev/mrg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org
>> <mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org> ]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:07 AM
>>> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Final release?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's time to make the final release of 1.2 and move ahead
>>> with other things that we planned. I am working on finishing the
>>> documentation (namely remote object persistence tutorial), and
>>> fixing
>>> last minute bugs. I think we are in a good shape overall. So how
>>> about a release sometime early next week.
>>>
>>> Comments? Objections?
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jul 11 2006 - 12:34:01 EDT