Because the tool and the method are called 'validate' instead of 'verify' I am going to go with 'validate' as the xml keyword.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tuna Toksöz <[email protected]> wrote: > Verify is a newly added tool. SchemaValidator is the name, in Tools > namespace. > And yes ValidateSchema is what is used in that. > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Will Shaver <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok, am doing the work to switch this over now based on your feedback. >> >> Update, export and drop are easy to implement and I think I have those >> done and working. I'm writing test cases to make sure. >> >> What do you mean by 'verify'? Do you mean Configuration.cs Like 1985 >> -> ValidateSchema? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Related to this issue we have probably something else... >> > Do someone can check if catalog+schema is well supported in each >> > schema-action ? >> > Thanks. >> > >> > 2008/12/13 Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> I am inclined to agree with this suggestionl; I had the same thought >> >> when >> >> reading this thread: what about the rest of the other schema-related >> >> ops? >> >> It would be great if we had a more extensible approach to this (as you >> >> are >> >> proposing here) that would also allow for easily adding support for any >> >> MORE >> >> schema-related ops that might be introduced in the future too. >> >> >> >> BTW, I think it would be great to get something like this into NH -- >> >> the >> >> awkwardness of handling mapped view during schema-gen has been a >> >> nuisance I >> >> have battled with on several projects (and we have dealt with it by >> >> using >> >> custom sql in the create/drop sections of the mappings but this always >> >> felt >> >> like a hack). This approach (Will's combined with Fabio's suggestion) >> >> seems >> >> much more elegant. >> >> >> >> -Steve B. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I Will. >> >>> We have various tools involving the schema: >> >>> - Export >> >>> - Drop >> >>> - Update >> >>> - Verify >> >>> What about something like the follow: >> >>> <classe name="Something" schema-action="export, drop, update, verify"> >> >>> The schema-action attribute can work like the "cascade" attribute as a >> >>> multiple choice. >> >>> All possible values of schema-action will be: none, all, export, drop, >> >>> update, verify >> >>> Default value is : all >> >>> Thought ? >> >>> >> >>> 2008/12/12 Will Shaver <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>>> A while back I asked about means to exclude a table from the schema >> >>>> export. As this wasn't possible, I've now added it to my version of >> >>>> the >> >>>> trunk. Before I commit I wanted to run it by people. Currently I have >> >>>> it set >> >>>> up as follows: >> >>>> >> >>>> Tables are included by default. (As before.) >> >>>> >> >>>> Tables mapped as: >> >>>> >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >>>> class name="Products" exportable="false"> >> >>>> ... >> >>>> >> >>>> Will not be published in either the 'Drop Table' or the 'Create >> >>>> Table' >> >>>> commands from the schema export tool. This solves Jira issue 1274. I >> >>>> have >> >>>> this working including the modification to the xsd/Hbm.generated.cs >> >>>> files. >> >>>> Is this an acceptable means of excluding certain classes from export? >> >>>> For >> >>>> reference, the reason for doing this could include mapping Views, >> >>>> tables >> >>>> from a different project, tables with existing data to be preserved >> >>>> etc. >> >>>> >> >>>> Your .02c would be useful. >> >>>> >> >>>> -Will >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Fabio Maulo >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Fabio Maulo >> > > > > > -- > Tuna Toksöz > http://tunatoksoz.com > > Typos included to enhance the readers attention! > >
