Hi Craig,
Hi Michelle,
We should look at the cases for pmf being null. The tearDown method
relies on the ability to get access to a PM in order to do cleanup. It
doesn't make sense to go through the expensive process of getting a PMF
if there is no tearDown work to do.
So perhaps we need to check first for any instances or classes to be
removed before we get a PMF in tearDown...
I agree!
And we should probably disallow pmf == null in cases where there is work
to do.
I'm not sure. Do you mean that the test result is ERROR for test cases
having "pmf == null in cases where there is work to do"? Let me know if
you feel strong on this.
By then I'll prepare a patch that includes your issue above and the
proposal below.
Regards,
Michael
Craig
On May 31, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
Alternatively, getPMF() could check to see if pmf is closed or null
and return a new pmf in either case.
-- Michelle
Michael Watzek wrote:
Hi,
there are 5 tests (AfterCloseGetPMThrowsException,
AfterCloseSetMethodsThrowException, Close,
CloseFailsIfTransactionActive,
CloseWithoutPermissionThrowsSecurityException) that call "getPMF()"
and "pmf.close()" in their "testXXX" methods , but they do not
nullify field "pmf". All of those tests fail in "localTearDown":
"localTearDown" calls "getPMF()" which returns field "pmf" if it is
not null. For this reason, "getPMF()" returnes a closed PMF in those
tests.
The proposal for a fix is to add a check before "localTearDown" is
called:
if (pmf!=null && pmf.isClosed())
pmf = null;
Regards,
Michael
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Watzek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Buelowstr. 66
Tel.: ++49/30/235 520 36 10783 Berlin - Germany
Fax.: ++49/30/217 520 12 http://www.spree.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
