On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
Correcting my case, there's relationship between B and C, not A and C.
If I set B -> C and C -> B relationships, it works with CAY-1009
reverted. It fails if there is a mismatch between forward and reverse
relationships like this: A -> C ; C -> B. This is indeed same as
Kevin's case, and I just uploaded another patch demonstrating it. The
validation error happens if the object is added for to-many:
b.addToRelated(c);
And this comes down to my earlier comment - if we are to handle
multiple permutations of object relationships over the same db path,
we need to rewrite the algorithm for reverse lookup (and maybe even
add other matching forward relationships to the mix during auto-update).
I.e. this is not something we can do in 3.0 at this point, but
definitely something to consider in 3.1.
Now back to 3.0... Could you explain why there is a mismatch in the
mapping? I.e. why can't you remap (A -> C ; C -> B) as either (A ->
C ; C -> A) or (B -> C ; C -> B) from the application design
perspective?
Andrus
