[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15355509#comment-15355509
]
Hadoop QA commented on PHOENIX-2990:
------------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12814794/PHOENIX-2990.002.diff
against master branch at commit bbfb1e31921db6767c003679715ab2dc6a244423.
ATTACHMENT ID: 12814794
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:green}+0 tests included{color}. The patch appears to be a
documentation, build,
or dev patch that doesn't require tests.
{color:red}-1 patch{color}. The patch command could not apply the patch.
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/421//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Ensure documentation on "time/date" datatypes/functions acknowledge lack of
> JDBC compliance
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-2990
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2990
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Josh Elser
> Assignee: Josh Elser
> Fix For: 4.8.0
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-2990.002.diff, PHOENIX-2990.diff
>
>
> In talking with [~speleato] about some differences in test cases between the
> thick and thin driver and DATE/TIMESTAMP datatypes, Sergio asked me if the
> docs were accurate on the Phoenix website about this.
> Taking a look at Data Types and Functions documentation, we don't outwardly
> warn users that these are not 100% compliant with the JDBC APIs.
> We do have the issue tracked in JIRA in PHOENIX-868 (and more, i'm sure), but
> it would be good to make sure the website is also forward in warning users.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
