> On Nov. 26, 2014, 1:07 a.m., Abraham Elmahrek wrote: > > repository/repository-derby/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/repository/derby/DerbyRepoConstants.java, > > line 46 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28463/diff/4/?file=776638#file776638line46> > > > > The comments above need to be updated, but this looks good.
on 1.99.4, this test case fails If there is a double upgrade initiated, it should not throw an exception on 1.99.4. Also changing to a new version is relevant when new upgrade code is added in 1.99.5, does not seem right to up a version number otherwise. We have not even done that. And it is not trivial change Second, if it tied to a release that number needs to be then tied to the release number and not a random incrementing sequence like we have. - Veena ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28463/#review63102 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 26, 2014, 1:05 a.m., Qian Xu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/28463/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 26, 2014, 1:05 a.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/DerbyRepoConstants.java > d869cb7 > > 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 > >
