[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4424?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792865#action_12792865
]
Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-4424:
----------------------------------------
Copying a comment that was raised on the derby-dev list. I think
the comment makes a good point, though I don't have a good
idea about what other naming convention to use.
I think that as long as we are consistent about using DERBY-NNNN
in test comments to refer to JIRA-hosted Deby issues, then it will
be fairly clear that other bug number references refer to pre-JIRA
bug tracking systems.
bryan
=====================================================
> > 1)
> > testBug2897(org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.OuterJoinTest)java.lang.NullPointerException
Btw, the number here, 2897, refers to pre-JIRA days. Should we make up
some systematic way of referring to such old error number so as not
to confuse them with JIRA numbering? I imagine we don't want to remove
the old number information since I have seen the IBM folks sometimes make
use of the old numbers.. Maybe it's enough that we always refer to
JIRA errors as DERBY-nnnn in comments and some adapted string for
identifiers, e.g. [dD]erbyNNNN.
Dag
> Convert outerjoin.sql into JUnit
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4424
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4424
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Eranda Sooriyabandara
> Assignee: Eranda Sooriyabandara
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 10.6.0.0
>
> Attachments: OuterJoinTest.diff, OuterJoinTest.diff,
> OuterJoinTest.diff
>
>
> Conversion of the outerjoin test into JUnit
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
