> From: "Rafal Maczewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I have cleaned up the patch. I hope it's ok now (I am new to Turbine coding, > sorry...) No apology necessary in my book. > >> 4. Test cases are more than welcome. > > I have attached a simple one. It does two queries one with setLimit and one > with setLimit and setOffset. They both produce incorrect results. I think you mean "correct" ;-) That's great. I am waiting for Stephen H. to get back to the list concerning an update to the testing framework used by torque - once he has this in place we will again be able to add the test cases to cvs so that they can be executed after a build (the goal being to establish a library of test cases). To be suitable for this you need to use JUnit - the easiest thing to do will be to copy one of the existing tests (I have one called LargeSelectTest that I am waiting to be committed).
> By the way, while creating the test case I discovered that: > Tab1Peer.doDelete( new Criteria() ); > does not delete any rows. To remove all rows from the table you have to add > a condition that is always true. I don't know if this is a feature or a bug, > but it seemed like a bug to me. Hmm. The testing framework is required here also as the best thing to do is to submit a test case suitable for including in cvs (using Junit) that you believe should pass. You would raise this as an issue in Scarab and someone would hopefully have a look at it at some stage in the near future. > >> 5. Posting then issue into Scarab (scarab.werken.com/issues) will ensure >> that it does not get lost on the mailing list. > > I'll try that. I am new to Scarab too... Me too ;-) > >> I haven't had a chance to have a good look at the code that resets the limit >> and offset, but I think I can see the problem you describe (it reminds me of >> the TemplateLink.toString() method which clears the path info and query data >> - i.e. an unexpected side-effect). It should be pretty easy to put together >> a test case to demonstrate whether or not this is a problem. > > I noticed that while switching from torque-3.0-b2 to torque-3.0-b4. I had > the following code: > Criteria criteria = new Criteria(); > criteria.add(...); > criteria.setLimit( ... ); > criteria.setOffset( ... ); > > log.debug( criteria.toString() ); > List l = Tab1Peer.doSelect( criteria ); > > In torque-3.0-b4 the criteria.toString() resets the limit and offset. So are you saying that the behaviour changed between b2 and b4? I'm going to repeat my mantra (one I am hoping Stephen and others will join in on) - post a test case and someone will look into it. Submitting issues with test cases to Scarab is great - submitting issues with test cases and patches to fix the problem (as you are doing in this case) is even better ;-) > > -- Rafal Cheers, Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
