Thank you for responding.
> 3. What was that point about that *reproducible* test case again?
:) I know, you can give me shit about not having a reproducible test
case.. but that is why I believe documenting everything in jira is even
more important. I am documenting evidence of the bug, which someone
could argue should go there, so anyone that wants to try to fix the bug
can get all pertinent information..
So, now that I have your attention, let's start to discuss.. what do you
think it could be? Any ideas? Any other code I can review?
ps - how come your unit tests didn't catch the other bugs that I filed?
other very very simple queries, inserting of objects, sorting of
queries, etc.. Are the slices unit tests working properly?
Pinaki Poddar wrote:
Hi,
I made comments on the bug itself, so we can document the whole issue:
1. We have maintained a distinction between JIRA and Nabble mail forum such
that once an issue is sufficiently discussed in Nabble and matured then a
corresponding JIRA issue is created. That does
filter out conversational chatter (for which this Nabble forum is more
suitable) and gives due importance to a JIRA issue that is classified as a
critical bug.
So you are requested a) to use this Nabble forum as you continue reporting
the results of your experimentation
b) consider raising JIRA issue, preferably with a reproducible test case
because that is the best way for you to communicate the failed use case and
also for us to attempt a resolution.
c) choose between these two fora (Nabble and JIRA) according to the nature
of communication.
2. > I'll try posting the "relevant portion of the failing use case", but I
just did.
I may have missed it amidst your words :) On an ideal day, I was looking for
a reproducible JUnit Test case. But specifically I was looking for real code
(not english description) that originates p0 and sets the parameter 'p0' to
the query.
Personally, I often find it more useful to generate a JUnit test case to
isolate/debug a failing usage.
the annoying part, is that it seems intermittent :(
oI can't reproduce it at the moment :(
3. What was that point about that *reproducible* test case again?
