I wasn't sure on what the best approach was. I figured if the existing tests weren't detailed enough, then enhancing them rather than coming up with a new DataMap was preferable. If not, I can back these out and come up with something else.
I was also trying to avoid entity overload for the testing. The test cases are very much structured around being able to load a particular DataMap, so coming up with a new one means a new test case as well. Not necessarily a bad thing, just explaining a bit more. -- Kevin On 3/16/08 12:59 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2008, at 7:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> <obj-entity name="AbstractPerson" >> className="org.apache.cayenne.testdo.inherit.AbstractPerson" >> dbEntityName="PERSON"> >> + <obj-attribute name="clientContactType" type="java.lang.String" >> db-attribute-path="CLIENT_CONTACT_TYPE"/> >> <obj-attribute name="name" type="java.lang.String" db-attribute- >> path="NAME"/> >> <obj-attribute name="personType" type="java.lang.String" db- >> attribute-path="PERSON_TYPE"/> >> + <obj-attribute name="salary" type="java.lang.Float" db-attribute- >> path="SALARY"/> >> </obj-entity> > > Kevin, > > was the above intentional? This and the change below makes me think - > maybe we need a separate new test entity hierarchy for testing the > edge cases that you've described recently to keep the existing mapping > more "vanilla" for the basic test cases? > >> <obj-relationship name="addresses" source="Employee" >> target="Address" db-relationship-path="employeeAddresses"/> >> + <obj-relationship name="homeAddresses" source="Employee" >> target="HomeAddress" db-relationship-path="employeeAddresses"/> > > Andrus
