Bugs item #1763575, was opened at 2007-07-30 15:17
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by vzzzbx
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=482468&aid=1763575&group_id=56967
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: PF/runtime
Group: (zombie: Pathfinder 0.18)
>Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 9
Private: No
Submitted By: Wouter Alink (vzzzbx)
Assigned to: Wouter Alink (vzzzbx)
Summary: XQ: insert attribute gives ERROR in merged_union
Initial Comment:
(using today's nightly stable build)
shredding the attached document with:
pf:add-doc("/tmp/tmpDoc3.xml","test.xml","test.xml",10)
and afterwards issuing the following two queries:
for $i in doc("test.xml")//file return do insert attribute { "nid" } {
pf:nid($i) } into $i
for $i in doc("test.xml")//*[not(file)] return do insert attribute { "nid" } {
pf:nid($i) } into $i
returns an error:
MAPI = [EMAIL PROTECTED]:50182
QUERY = for $i in doc("test.xml")//*[not(file)] return do insert attribute {
"nid" } { pf:nid($i) } into $i
ERROR = !ERROR: merged_union: tail of first BAT must be sorted.
!ERROR: CMDmerged_union: operation failed.
!ERROR: interpret_params: reverse(param 1): evaluation error.
!ERROR: interpret_params: kdiff(param 1): evaluation error.
!ERROR: interpret_params: access(param 1): evaluation error.
!ERROR: interpret_params: insert(param 1): evaluation error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Wouter Alink (vzzzbx)
Date: 2007-10-02 21:33
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=621590
Originator: YES
looks correct to me. stefan, thanks for adding the test (i had forgotten
about it)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Stefan Manegold (stmane)
Date: 2007-09-29 14:02
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=572415
Originator: NO
After almost 2 month, I finally felt free to add a test myself as monitor
whether this feature (apparently required by NFI) is indeed fixed in the
upcoming release and will remain fixed in the future.
See
.../pathfinder/tests/BugTracker/Tests/insert_attribute_gives_ERROR_in_merged_union.SF-1763575.*
Wouter,
could you please check, whether my test makes sense (also) for you, and if
so finally close this bug report?
Thanks in advance!
Stefan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Wouter Alink (vzzzbx)
Date: 2007-08-03 12:21
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=621590
Originator: YES
i'll add a test for this.
peter is correct in that i meant 'not(self::file)'.
and to assure peter: the use of the query was only to be able to produce
better bugreports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Stefan Manegold (stmane)
Date: 2007-08-02 23:12
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=572415
Originator: NO
As usually, we should add a test for this one.
Unless anybody is faster, I'll try to do so tomorrow (CEST).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Peter Boncz (boncz)
Date: 2007-08-02 21:19
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=591107
Originator: NO
fixed
now the query gives another error stating that a target node exists that
already has a nid attribute.
this is correct, because the second update adds the nid attribute to all
nodes that do ot have a *CHILD* of type file. Examples of such nodes are
all file nodes..
Anyway, I really do appreciate the bug reports. Still a remark. From the
coding patterns these reports express, I deduce some desire to add explicit
'nid' attributes to XML as IDs. I think this is very confusing and should
be forbidden; each note has a native NID; it should not be present
explicitly. I would only use nids as in IDREFs (ie referring to other
nodes).
And of course, you are aware that as of yet, backup/restore in the admin
GUI does not preserve NIDs in updatable documents..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Sjoerd Mullender (sjoerd)
Date: 2007-08-01 15:30
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=43607
Originator: NO
I can easily reproduce this on the current Stable.
The problem occurs in the call to merged_union in get_attr_own(). The
first two input BATs need to be sorted in the tail, but aren't.
The way the code works is that the head columns of the ATTR_OWN_PRIVATE
and ATTR_OWN_SHARED BATs need to be sorted (there is a .hmark([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) done on
both), but in this case they aren't.
My question to Peter: is it a bug that those tables are not sorted in
their head columns?
If not, can you fix your code in get_attr_own?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=482468&aid=1763575&group_id=56967
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Monetdb-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/monetdb-bugs
