Looks like a bug to me. Sergi
2017-04-12 21:03 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов <[email protected]>: > Why not? I do something with cache inside transaction. The only reason to > not rollback is another node? > > 2017-04-12 19:52 GMT+03:00 Andrey Mashenkov <[email protected]>: > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > Looks like you start transaction on node "grid(0)", but update value on > > another node "grid(1)". > > So, technically, it is not nested transactions, right? > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Дмитрий Рябов <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, igniters. I start the node and create a transactional cache on > it, > > > on the other node I start the transaction and "put" in previously > created > > > cache and rollback transaction. So what should I get? Value stored > before > > > transaction or inside rolled transaction? > > > > > > public void testRollback() throws Exception { > > > startGrid(0); > > > startGrid(1); > > > IgniteCache<Integer, Integer> cache1 = grid( 1).cache(null); > > > cache1.put(1, 1); > > > try (Transaction tx = grid(0).transactions().txStart(PESSIMISTIC, > > READ_COMMITTED)) { > > > cache1.put(1, 1111); > > > tx.rollback(); > > > } > > > assertEquals((Integer) 1, cache1.get(1)); > > > } > > > > > > > > > The question is why I got 1111 instead of 1? If it is right behaviour - > > > why it nowhere explained? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >
