----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28463/#review63100 -----------------------------------------------------------
repository/repository-derby/src/test/java/org/apache/sqoop/repository/derby/TestRespositorySchemaUpgrade.java <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28463/#comment105268> sure this test makes sense now that we will still be ok with double call to upgrade. thanks for the update Qian. please rename the method, that we are doing double upgrade and please add a comment, it really gets harder to understand these othwerise later. - Veena Basavaraj On Nov. 25, 2014, 10:11 p.m., Qian Xu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/28463/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 25, 2014, 10:11 p.m.) > > > Review request for Sqoop. > > > Bugs: SQOOP-1812 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-1812 > > > Repository: sqoop-sqoop2 > > > Description > ------- > > Unexpected behaviour: Sqoop2 server tries to add an existing constraint > repeatedly. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > repository/repository-derby/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/repository/derby/DerbyRepositoryHandler.java > 907978f > > repository/repository-derby/src/test/java/org/apache/sqoop/repository/derby/TestRespositorySchemaUpgrade.java > 928c34a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28463/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Added a test case to guard the scenario > > > Thanks, > > Qian Xu > >
