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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:42 AM To: [email protected] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:05 PM > To: [email protected] > 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, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>; committed; >> [collectionElement=>{<ObjectId:PSLocalCollectionElement, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>}; moniker=>ES; >> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, [EMAIL PROTECTED]>}]} >> >> collectionElement.removeFromItems(item); >> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>; modified; [collectionElement=>null; >> moniker=>ES; >> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, [EMAIL PROTECTED]>}]} >> >> notification.removeFromItems(item); >> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>; modified; [collectionElement=>null; >> moniker=>ES; >> notification=>null]} >> >> dataContext.deleteObject(item); >> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] >> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:33 AM >> To: [email protected] >> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:07 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> > >
