Thanks for your advice. I will try to work around it then.
On 28 May 2013 20:24, "Peter Rabbitson" <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us> wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:01:42AM +0800, lim weityug wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > Our company is maintaining 2 versions of dbix class, which is version
> > 0.08115 and 0.08195. We have an issue on defining the condition in
> > might_have relationship. Before we have the new server (which is running
> > dbix version 0.08195), our result file is like the following:
> >
> >
> >
> > __PACKAGE__->might_have(
> >
> > 'sample',
> >
> > 'Schema::Result::Sample',
> >
> > {
> >
> > 'foreign.pid' => 'self.pid and sample.wstart = 0',
> >
> > },
> >
> > );
> >
> >
> >
> > This works well for version 0.08115
>
> It does not work "well" - it works by accident. You are asking DBIC to
> look for a column named (literally) q{self.pid and sample.wstart = 0}.
> It only works because you are not asking DBIC to quote your identifiers
> (a bad practice in general).
>
> > but it fail for version 0.08195
>
> In newer versions relationships metadata is interrogated more closely,
> and everything understandably fails.
>
> >
> > We can’t just upgrade our dbix class to latest version as this require
> > intensive regression test on our application which is very huge effort
> and
> > high risk. We’re trying to see if there is any way for having the codes
> to
> > be run in both dbix versions.
>
> This is a *really* poor way to handle a critical dependency of a
> critical project. While DBIC has an unparallelled track record for
> backwards compatibility, there are limits to any effort. As a result you
> will find yourself hitting more and more situations just like this one,
> and will inevitably end up with a paralyzed codebase. It is just a
> matter of time under such a policy.
>
> QED - there isn't really a practical way to support this invalid syntax
> on newer DBIC versions. The "best" solution I can offer is for you to
> define the relationship depending which DBIC version your server has
> loaded.
>
> Since DBIC version 0.08190 the proper way to define such relationships
> is by using a coderef which returns the SQL::Abstract snippet you are
> after:
>
>
> https://metacpan.org/source/RIBASUSHI/DBIx-Class-0.08250/lib/DBIx/Class/Relationship/Base.pm#L128
>
> Cheers and good luck - you will need it ;)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
> IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
> SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
> Searchable Archive:
> http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
>
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
