Re: CAY-1378, CAY-1009...

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Wed Feb 10 2010 - 16:52:14 EST

  • Next message: Khailenko Ksenia: "eclipse plugin for modeler"

    On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
    > If your analysis is correct, the patch at the very least should have
    > caused a failure somewhere in the test
    > suite.

    The test suite is not ideal. In fact it barely touches runtime
    relationships, working with bi-directional relationship graphs in most
    cases. We need to improve it, no question.

    > I still really don't feel like I mapped my STI relationship
    > incorrectly. It's the most natural way to do it.

    The way you described it in this thread, it is indeed. And the thing
    is - in my tests this type of mapping works without CAY-1009 patch. So
    I wonder if the the actual failing mapping has some details not
    mentioned here. I'd appreciate if you dig up that failing mapping, so
    that we could inspect it.

    For now I am going to commit my fix, reverting CAY-1009 + some minor
    refactoring + CAY-1378 test case. Since the controversial piece is
    just 3 lines of code in ObjRelationship, it should be easy to redo it
    one more time if we find a reason to do so.

    Andrus



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Feb 10 2010 - 16:52:45 EST