I wasn't sure on what the best approach was. I figured if the existing
tests weren't detailed enough, then enhancing them rather than coming up
with a new DataMap was preferable. If not, I can back these out and come up
with something else.
I was also trying to avoid entity overload for the testing. The test cases
are very much structured around being able to load a particular DataMap, so
coming up with a new one means a new test case as well. Not necessarily a
bad thing, just explaining a bit more.
-- KevinOn 3/16/08 12:59 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2008, at 7:31 PM, kmenar..pache.org wrote: > >> <obj-entity name="AbstractPerson" >> className="org.apache.cayenne.testdo.inherit.AbstractPerson" >> dbEntityName="PERSON"> >> + <obj-attribute name="clientContactType" type="java.lang.String" >> db-attribute-path="CLIENT_CONTACT_TYPE"/> >> <obj-attribute name="name" type="java.lang.String" db-attribute- >> path="NAME"/> >> <obj-attribute name="personType" type="java.lang.String" db- >> attribute-path="PERSON_TYPE"/> >> + <obj-attribute name="salary" type="java.lang.Float" db-attribute- >> path="SALARY"/> >> </obj-entity> > > Kevin, > > was the above intentional? This and the change below makes me think - > maybe we need a separate new test entity hierarchy for testing the > edge cases that you've described recently to keep the existing mapping > more "vanilla" for the basic test cases? > >> <obj-relationship name="addresses" source="Employee" >> target="Address" db-relationship-path="employeeAddresses"/> >> + <obj-relationship name="homeAddresses" source="Employee" >> target="HomeAddress" db-relationship-path="employeeAddresses"/> > > Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Mar 16 2008 - 18:12:26 EDT