2009/5/12 Krzysztof Kozmic <[email protected]> > Well, as I said - I'm quite new here, so I may be discovering things, > that are obvious for the experienced ones of you :) > > Thanks Roger for your explanation. I know that having the two-way inverse > association would workaround the issue, but there are still situations where > it's not welcome to introduce the child-to-parent association in the code. > > Now that I know how NH works this out, I'm thinking if it would be > appropriate (feasable) to introduce a patch that would change its behavior > to merge the insert pet with update pet. >
The test you should write should be enough complex to prevent ugly breaking changes. Try it with a complex graph with complex cascade. In your example you should try to solve even another case. A Animal (Pets) can exists even without a owner (Person); that is what you are doing using unidir. Now create a new Person and add it 3 Animals : 1) a persistent animal changing its owner 2) a NO persistent Animal (a new one) 3) a persistent Animal but without a previous owner then save the new Person. For Animal you should try it using: <subclass> <joined-subclass> <subclass>+<join> <union-subclass> Let us know which is the result. The test is more important than the fix. Right test mean right fix; wrong test mean wrong fix. -- Fabio Maulo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
