Hi, Fabio and Francesco: thanks for the fast feedback.
> > I cannot remember the good reason for this differences but it there was ... > > In our experience with Apache Syncope (especially at the beginning) there > are troubles with AUTO generated id in case of high concurrence. > > Not only: some specific table generator associated to a given entity (or set > of > entities) were defined, and defined in orm.xml, not by annotations - in order > to give more flexibility when dealing with specific requirements in id > generation. I also have not nice experience with AUTO strategy under high concurrency. The question was more in following direction: does it make sense potentially to use TABLE (in orm.xml) also for AbstractDerAttr, AbstractVirAttr, Notification, UserRequest or there is good reason to keep them with AUTO annotation? > > I cannot be sure about the reason but, please, consider that integration > tests are interdependent: the order and the existence of a certain test are > often fundamental. > > Exactly, here's why text execution order is fixed. > Consider that integration tests were added over time and that their number > is starting to be quite considerable... Yep, already see it from @FixMethodOrder annotation and from tests logic. I am trying to found more or less reliable solution to keep NotificationITTestCase re-runnable (SYNCOPE-268) - will investigate the problem additionally and inform about result. Cheers, Andrei. > > Regards. > > >> Cheers, > >> Andrei. > >> > >> > >> (1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-268 > > -- > Francesco Chicchiriccò > > ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member > http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
