Agreed, I was just trying to get the full picture -- I'll meditate on this and take a stab a patch.
Thanks for your time and help clarifying this. -Yousef On 1/28/08, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2008 4:47 PM, Yousef Ourabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yonik could you elaborate a bit -- I'm not following .. > > > > 1) The RubyResponseWriter should never leave a hash value blank in a > (k,v) > > pair, it should use Nil -- this is handled in the patch. What is > missing? > > This, in my opinion is separate from how that value got empty/nil in the > > index. > > > > 2) Which leads to Schema validation which the second patch handles. > > > > What part of the picture am I not seeing? > > fix_ruby_output.patch (this was a patch by someone else), only fixes > ruby output and is hence incomplete and implemented in the wrong > place. > > zero_length_int.patch (my quick hack), was for changing a zero length > string to a 0 for integer (one possible interpretation for this weird > case)...but it's still for the output side, not validating input at > index time. > > So we should fix both #1 and #2, but hopefully you agree it's not the > highest priority since it doesn't block anyone from fixing their > client indexing code (which would still break after we fixed #2). > > -Yonik >
