Now that i've slept i'm wondering if the underlying problem might be
related to the way that defaults are handled in RDBO. That's one thing
that differs between the tables used in the original tests and the table
in the test i submitted.
Adam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With this patch, everything + my failing test passes. I'm not sure if
> this is a good idea or a bad idea though. In my test that fails $_ is
> defined as an empty string (as far as i can tell) for some reason,
> instead of as undef as i would expect. There's probably an underlying
> bug causing that, but my eyes are starting to bleed...
>
> Adam
>
> --- lib/Rose/DB/Object.pm (revision 1507)
> +++ lib/Rose/DB/Object.pm (working copy)
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@
> my $defined = 0;
> @key_columns = @$cols;
> @key_methods = map { $meta->column_accessor_method_name($_)
> } @key_columns;
> - @key_values = map { $defined++ if(defined $_); $_ }
> + @key_values = map { $defined++ if($_); $_ }
> map { $self->$_() } @key_methods;
>
> if($defined == @key_columns)
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Rose-db-object mailing list
Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
