Re: tests feedback

[Craig L Russell]

Hi Erik,

On Apr 28, 2006, at 5:11 AM, Erik Bengtson wrote:

I assume that you're running the latest TCK that is checked into the
svn repository?

Yes

To help figure out if there is still an issue with the TCK, could you
please run the interface test multiple times by itself, e.g.

maven -Djdo.tck.cfglist=companyPMInterface.conf runtck.jdori
maven -Djdo.tck.cfglist=companyPMInterface.conf runtck.jdori

This will test that the cleanup is happening in the interface test
itself. It seems to me that if the cleanup of the interfaces doesn't
work correctly, it will affect other tests because the primary key
for the interface instances is identical to the primary key for the
class instances.

You are right. I run the above cmd line twice and the problem appears

Query query = new Query();
query.setClass(ICompany.class);
query.setCandidates(pm.getExtent(ICompany.class, false));
pm.deletePersistentAll((Collection)query.execute());

This indicates that there is an issue with deleting instances of persistent interfaces using this pattern (this is the pattern used by the tearDown method in the tests): Could you please check to see if your implementation supports this for persistent interfaces?

Also, to allow us to help you, can you upload the JPOX jar files as

an attachment to the bug report JDO-327 so we can see what you can see?

ok will do it, but it is already committed to JPOX CVS

Thanks,

Craig

As of this morning, the maven repository does not have the changes. Please upload the jar files so we can take a look at your changes.

And thanks for the info on the discriminator index. Joerg and I are
still discussing whether an index is useful, so the code that Michael
checked in doesn't include the index.

In real apps it may be useful, but in the TCK we will not lose much.

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature