Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Here's a newer version of this test that loops through counts for the
two tests. This then allows any change to instantly see the higher limits.
Thanks Dan,
I have some other changes to the test as well and will incorporate the
looping at the same time.
Kathey Marsden wrote:
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Here's a newer version of this test that loops through counts for the
two tests. This then allows any change to instantly see the higher limits.
I've actually committed a newer version, with a looping test for a large
IN clause, to allow
Kathey Marsden wrote:
The test lang/largeCodeGen.java is not run with derbyall. I t contains
some cases that are known failures and has no master.
I did some cleanup of this test and added some new cases (svn 351776 )
in preparation for fixing DERBY-739, but found this case fails.
Here's a
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Kathey Marsden wrote:
The test lang/largeCodeGen.java is not run with derbyall. I t contains
some cases that are known failures and has no master.
I did some cleanup of this test and added some new cases (svn 351776 )
in preparation for fixing DERBY-739, but
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Kathey Marsden wrote:
My questions
1) Was largeUnionSelect(con, viewName, 2000) passing at one time?
I put that comment and my guess it was passing. I updated DERBY-176 with
all the svn commits I did for it, it might be worth going back to the
last
The test lang/largeCodeGen.java is not run with derbyall. I t contains
some cases that are known failures and has no master.
I did some cleanup of this test and added some new cases (svn 351776 )
in preparation for fixing DERBY-739, but found this case fails.
// 2000 unions caused method too
Kathey Marsden wrote:
My questions
1) Was largeUnionSelect(con, viewName, 2000) passing at one time?
I put that comment and my guess it was passing. I updated DERBY-176 with
all the svn commits I did for it, it might be worth going back to the
last revision for DERBY-176 and seeing if it
