Also noticed one test behaving oddly... MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLServer all had
the same failure on first run (see below). On subsequent runs that failure
disappeared. Wonder if that was caused by the existing schema previously used
for 4.0 testing. For now ignoring it, and posting this here as a way of
documenting the problem in case it reemerges in the future.
Andrus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test set: org.apache.cayenne.access.dbsync.SchemaUpdateStrategyTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 8, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.437 sec <<<
FAILURE!
testDBGeneratorStrategy(org.apache.cayenne.access.dbsync.SchemaUpdateStrategyTest)
Time elapsed: 0.04 sec <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<2> but was:<1>
at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
at junit.framework.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:282)
at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:64)
at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:201)
at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:207)
at
org.apache.cayenne.access.dbsync.SchemaUpdateStrategyTest.testDBGeneratorStrategy(SchemaUpdateStrategyTest.java:75)
> On Apr 9, 2016, at 2:14 PM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>
>> There was a whole bunch of bug fixes for 3.1 recently. I think we should
>> release them to the public. Planning to start the vote in a couple of weeks.
>> If anyone who's still on 3.1 has any more things to fix, please speak up.
>>
>> Andrus
>
> Just did some preliminary testing of 3.1.1 (as you see from my other email on
> unit tests and Jenkins). Here is my local test matrix:
>
> Rat: passed
>
> Java 7:
>
> Derby - passed
> H2 - passed
> HSQLDB - passed
> MySQL 5.6 - passed
> PostgreSQL - 1 failure, same as [1]
> SQLServer - passed
>
> Java 8:
>
> Derby - passed
> MySQL 5.6 - passed
>
> Java 5,6: - those pass on Jenkins, proving that the Java code is still
> compatible. I haven't tested them locally.
>
> I think we are in a good shape to start a release some time next week.
>
> Andrus
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cayenne.apache.org/msg07510.html
