Sounds great! I think it is important to close both these bugs before the 10.1 release. Post any questions you may have.
Satheesh TomohitoNakayama wrote: > Hello. > > Reading series of other mail "Running derbyall before submitting > patches", > I'm very sorry for DERBY-318.... > > If possible , I want to work for DERBY-318 before DERBY-308 .... > > Best regards. > > /* > > Tomohito Nakayama > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Naka > http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html > > */ > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Army" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:56 AM > Subject: Re: DERBY-308 just be done and .... (Re: [jira] Updated: > (DERBY-308) Modify dblook to support "GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY") > > >> TomohitoNakayama wrote: >> >>> Hello. >>> >>> I have just done DERBY-308. >>> I uploaded patch just for reviewing. >> >> >> Hi Tomohito, >> >> Thanks for looking at this so quickly. A couple of comments on the >> patch: >> >> First and most importanly: >> >> It looks like you have run the dblook_test for embedded mode and have >> updated the master, which is great. But I think the equivalent >> master updates for the server tests are missing. In particular, I >> think it'd be good to run the "derbynet/dblook_test_net.java" test >> against the Network Server and update the master files accordingly. >> There are two masters, one for the test with JCC and one for the test >> with the Derby Network Client. >> >> The reason I list this as "most importantly" is because when I myself >> tried to run dblook_test_net against the server, I got a DRDA >> protocol exception with the "GENERATED BY DEFAULT" column. I looked >> into this some more and, after removing your patch, I was able to >> figure out that the problem isn't with your DERBY-308 patch so much >> as with GENERATED BY DEFAULT columns in general. I will file a >> separate JIRA defect for that problem next--but in the meantime, I >> think this is a good example of why we need to run tests against the >> server as much as possible. >> >> My second (minor) comment on the patch is that it appears to contain >> Japanese characters at the top of each file's diff. I think it's >> Japanese for the words "revision" and "working copy". The patch >> still applies in my codeline without problem, but I think it might be >> safer to try to remove those characters from the patch before >> submitting, if that's possible...? >> >> I will file a JIRA entry for the DRDA protocol problem I mentioned >> above. You may want to wait until that protocol issue can be resolved >> before proceeding with this DERBY-308 patch... >> >> Army >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.17 - Release Date: 2005/05/25 >> >> > > >
