absurdfarce commented on code in PR #2045:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cassandra-java-driver/pull/2045#discussion_r2986344609
##########
integration-tests/src/test/java/com/datastax/oss/driver/core/cql/PreparedStatementCachingIT.java:
##########
@@ -295,17 +298,20 @@ private void invalidationTestInner(
Consumer<CqlSession> setupCacheEntryTestBasic =
(session) -> {
- session.execute("CREATE TYPE test_type_1 (a text, b int)");
- session.execute("CREATE TYPE test_type_2 (c int, d text)");
- session.execute("CREATE TABLE test_table_1 (e int primary key, f
frozen<test_type_1>)");
- session.execute("CREATE TABLE test_table_2 (g int primary key, h
frozen<test_type_2>)");
+ session.execute("CREATE TYPE test_type_caching_1 (a text, b int)");
+ session.execute("CREATE TYPE test_type_caching_2 (c int, d text)");
+ session.execute(
+ "CREATE TABLE test_table_caching_1 (e int primary key, f
frozen<test_type_caching_1>)");
+ session.execute(
+ "CREATE TABLE test_table_caching_2 (g int primary key, h
frozen<test_type_caching_2>)");
Review Comment:
Actually, as I look at this again... why would the changes to this test do
_anything_ to fix the underlying problem? With the changes in this PR you
still have _exactly_ the same name collisions we had in the previous test...
now everything just collides with test_table_caching or test_type_caching
instead of test_table and test_type.
Setting aside the question of session isolation (which I still don't think
we have right) why... is this better?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
