> I'm using 2.1, but not trying 2.5. If you send me the FbColumns.cs
> source file, I'll create my own test build.
You can grab it from SVN, if you don't want weekly build assembly.
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (Microsoft Student Partner)
http://blog.vyvojar.cz/jirka/ | http://www.ID3renamer.com
--
Jiri Cincura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> did you test the build?
>
>
I'm sorry, no. At 12.01.2008 14:51 you wrote:
>> Do I understand correctly that you don't change the latest stable
> > version, but the next prepared version?
Yes.
I'm using 2.1, but not trying 2.5. If you send me t
Hi,
did you test the build?
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (Microsoft Student Partner)
http://blog.vyvojar.cz/jirka/ | http://www.ID3renamer.com
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual
On 1/12/08, VS-Polis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I installed and tried to test, but it fails with NullReferenceException
Humm, the NAnt builds are again broken. I've uploaded manually build assembly.
> Do I understand correctly that you don't change the latest stable
> version, but the next prep
Hi Jiri,
I installed and tried to test, but it fails with NullReferenceException
on GetSchema("Tables") and all other CollectionNames. Using gacutil, I
found out that the "weekly build" on
http://netprovider.cincura.net/FirebirdSql.Data.FirebirdClient.dll has
version 2.5.0.0 but not 2.1.0.0.
Hi,
it should be fixed now in SVN (and in weekly build). Now the bahavior
is like isql. Please test.
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (Microsoft Student Partner)
http://blog.vyvojar.cz/jirka/ | http://www.ID3renamer.com
-
Check out the
On 1/11/08, VS-Polis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have more important things to do, you can wait until I set a
> corrected version of the SELECT command in Schema\FbColumns.cs into
> DNET-151.
No problem, it's just a simple case statement.
I hope DNET-151 and 152 will be resolved during we
On 1/11/08, Helen Borrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >OK, now I see. I missed, that the column will be evaluated only for
> >column definition without domain.
>
> Incorrect. All column definitions have a domain, including those that are
> defined independently of a user-defined domain. All of t
>On 1/11/08, André Knappstein, Controlling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Once you remove the "NOT NULL" from the domain, this column would
>> still remain "not nullable".
You cannot remove the NOT NULL constraint.
At 09:33 PM 11/01/2008, Jiri wrote:
>OK, now I see. I missed, that the column wi
Hi,
Jiri Cincura wrote:
> "is_nullable" means, that column accepts NULL values. So it should be
> (keep eyes on me Helen :)):
> 1. domain has "NOT NULL" clause (no matter what's on column
> definition) > is_nullable = false
> 2. column has "NOT NULL" clause > is_nullable = false
> 3. Othervise is_
On 1/11/08, André Knappstein, Controlling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once you remove the "NOT NULL" from the domain, this column would
> still remain "not nullable".
OK, now I see. I missed, that the column will be evaluated only for
column definition without domain.
PS: I haven't looked to the
Hello Jiri,
>> Maybe what you want and need is a (new?) property "NOT_NULL_SET" which
>> could result to false for the column while "is_nullable" still _CAN_
>> return false because of the underlying domain.
JC> Isn't this just negation of is_nullable? BTW in schema table are some
JC> well-known
On 1/11/08, André Knappstein, Controlling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at a column which is not nullable because you set "NOT NULL"
> to the column, you would EXPECT the property "is_nullable" to be
> true, where "true" is represented by the numeric value 1.
> I would NOT, because literally
André Knappstein wrote:
> I am a bit worried, in any case, that you would expect different
> results for the 2 cases, because in both cases the column literally
> "is not nullable".
>
> Maybe what you want and need is a (new?) property "NOT_NULL_SET" which
> could result to false for the column wh
Jürgen,
reading this I am quite glad that I have not needed this property in
.net provider so far, because I admit it would exceed my comprehension
of FB internals.
Just in case I need it in future, I would like to get an additional
clarification:
Looking at a column which is not nullable becau
On 1/10/08, VS-Polis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore I declare it a bug.
Please report it into tracker (http://tracker.firebirdsql.org) and I
will solve it ASAP. If you can, provide also small test-case.
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (Microsoft Student Partner)
http://blog.vyvojar.cz/jirka/ | http
On 1/10/08, Helen Borrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is wrong. The word "nullable" is not a synonym for NOT NULL, it is the
> opposite. A field definition constrained NOT NULL is "non-nullable".
Oh man, you're right. I missed, that we're talking about nullable and
not about not null.
--
Thank you Jiri,
alright, I know that's the correct way to check a column in Firebird.
But when I want to check a DataColumn in a NET application, I want to
know if this DataColumn allows DBNull or not. Beyond I want to convert
the database structure to an xsd schema file and to a typed dataset
At 10:11 PM 10/01/2008, you wrote:
>On 1/10/08, VS-Polis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the database column itself is set to "not null" or if this column is
>> part of the primary key, it returns is_nullable as correct value "1" resp.
>> "true". If the database column is defined via domain and t
On 1/10/08, Dean Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the question is, though, is that the behavior of Firebird
> server? Obviously, GetSchema("Columns") should be returning whatever
> Firebird *actually does*.
I don't understand your explanation of the question. Can you provide
more detai
Jiri Cincura wrote:
> This is right, imo. The NOT NULL work like this:
> 1. If the domain is not null > not null = true
> 2. If the domain isn't not null, look at the column definition; if the
> column definition is not null > not null = true
> 3. Othervise.
>
> So you cannot override not null to
On 1/10/08, VS-Polis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the database column itself is set to "not null" or if this column is
> part of the primary key, it returns is_nullable as correct value "1" resp.
> "true". If the database column is defined via domain and the domain is set
> to "not null", the c
Title: Jürgen Thomas
GetSchema("Columns") has wrong values concerning not-null columns.
The result DataTable of the
FbConnection.GetSchema("Columns") method sets the column
"is_nullable" as follows:
If the database column itself is set to
"not null" or if this column is part of the primary ke
23 matches
Mail list logo
