On Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Israel Hilerio > > <isra...@microsoft.com> > >> We believe an error should be thrown because of the violation of the > >> unique value index constraint and the error code should be set to > >> CONSTRAINT_ERR. What do you think? > > > > IIRC, we decided update should essentially be an alias to delete and > > then an add on the parent object store--probably an atomic one. So by > > that logic it does seem to me CONSTRAINT_ERR would be the right error. > > Hmm.. it's not exactly a delete and a add since if the add produces an error > but the error handler calls .preventDefault, you don't want only the delete to > be executed. > > I'd rather say that a .update is the same as a .put. > > > Btw, ObjectStore.add()'s exception section doesn't mention > > CONSTRAINT_ERR though it probably should. > > IDBObjectStore.add never throws CONSTRAINT_ERR since that's detected > asynchronously, so the spec seems fine here. However > IDBObjectStoreSync.add and IDBObjectStoreSync.put should and does list it as > an exception. > > / Jonas
Attached is the sample page you requested. The sample creates a unique index on the property "foo" and updates a record with a duplicate value for "foo". In FF, I was able to update the entry with a duplicate value for "foo". I agree with you that we should generate an error event with a .code set to CONSTRAIN_ERR if there is a collision when calling .update. Also agree that we should update the IDBObjectStoreSync.add and IDBObjectStoreSync.put to include CONSTRAINT_ERR as part of its exception list. Israel
<<< text/html; name="cursor_update_unique.htm": Unrecognized >>>
