On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:49 +0000, Lukas Zeller wrote: > On Mar 4, 2010, at 18:49 , Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:05 +0000, Patrick Ohly wrote: > However, while tracking through the code I found that indeed in the > server, the case of a client sending duplicate <Add>s was not handled > at all. So even with <resumesupport> a repeated add from the client > IMHO would have created a duplicate in the server DB. > As most clients always send <Replace> (including libsynthesis not so > long ago), this case did not surface. > > I now added a check for that in 3e687ddfca (server engine: added > missing check for re-sent <Add> during resume.)
Then my testing wasn't all in vain, even though it doesn't seem to be 100% reliable - see below. I'll continue testing with your patch included. > ...and <resumesupport> is irrelevant (so what I said in the previous > message is not entirely correct - old plugins will AUTOMATICALLY > disable resume; <resumesupport> is only relevant for SQL backends). > > So it's even stranger that enabling <resumesupport> should have made > the tests to pass now. ??? I also enable blob support, but that shouldn't be relevant for these tests. But I might have been wrong about it working: rerunning it shows that the results are not always reproducable. I need to look into that. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ os-libsynthesis mailing list os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
