> On July 22, 2011, 8:04 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote: > > nepomuk/services/storage/test/datamanagementmodeltest.cpp, line 1222 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101994/diff/1/?file=27394#file27394line1222> > > > > You test seems to imply that the sub-resource will not be removed, if > > some other resource has it as its sub resource. > > > > It should be that the sub-resource won't be deleted if any other > > resource has any property accessing it. > > > > Example - The Strigi indexer adds "Mickey Mouse" as a contact because > > he is the author of some PDF file. Then someone creates a pimo:Person of > > "Mickey Mouse" and adds pimo:groundingOccurance to that contact. > > > > If that PDF file is deleted, then should we delete the contact?
That is a very good point. The idea here was that we do not end up with any junk. Let me pick up your example: If the pimo person is deleted the contact is not touched since it is not a sub-resource of the person. Thus, we end up with a contact which we actually do not want to have. Still your use-case is more than valid and we need to find a solution here. - Sebastian ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101994/#review4954 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 18, 2011, 3:04 p.m., Sebastian Trueg wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101994/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 18, 2011, 3:04 p.m.) > > > Review request for Nepomuk. > > > Summary > ------- > > So far we have sub-resource handling in removeResources and > removeDataByApplication. It means that sub-resources are removed if their > super-resources are removed, too and no other resource references them. > However, this is not done in removeProperty and removeProperties. IMHO it > should be done, too. As soon as the nao:hasSubResource relation is removed > there is no relation between super- and sub-resource anymore rendering the > sub-resource pointless. > > The attached patch simply adds two unit tests. It does not include the actual > code which implements the sub-resource handling in removeProperty and > removeProperties. The point of this review request is to determine if the > behavior explained above is what we want or not. > > > Diffs > ----- > > nepomuk/services/storage/test/datamanagementmodeltest.h a46e525 > nepomuk/services/storage/test/datamanagementmodeltest.cpp f2ca76e > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101994/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Sebastian > >
_______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
