Re: OJB123, RE: 0.9.8, ODMG: primary key with FieldConversion

[Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>]

hi oliver,

thanks for your patches. i  just commited them to the repository.
your testcases pass.

jakob

oliver.matz@ppi.de wrote:

>Hello Armin,
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Armin Waibel [mailto:armin@code-au-lait.de]
>>    
>>
>
>[..]
>
>  
>
>>>A potential fix is in TransactionImpl, line 883
>>>      
>>>
>
>[..]
>
>I tried the fix myself, and this is what I needed to correct
>moreover:
>
>800c800,801
><                 Object[] refPkValues =
>getBroker().serviceBrokerHelper().getKeyValues(rds.getClassDescriptor(),
>ref, false); // modified by oma, 29.01.03
>---
>  
>
>>                Identity refOID = new Identity(ref, getBroker());
>>                Object[] refPkValues = refOID.getPrimaryKeyValues();
>>    
>>
>882c883
><                 Object[] objPkValues =
>this.getBroker().serviceBrokerHelper().getKeyValues(cld, newTxObject,
>false);  // modified by oma, 29.01.03
>---
>  
>
>>                Object[] objPkValues =
>>    
>>
>this.getBroker().serviceBrokerHelper().getKeyValues(cld, newTxObject);
>
>(When you read this mail, you probably have some extra linefeeds in it.
>Sorry for that, I have to use M$-Outlook and I do not know how to tune
>it correctly.)
> 
>  
>
>>>I have not tried the test case that you, Armin, have introduced.
>>>If the test does not fail, there mightbe somethinng
>>>wrong with the test  (Missing collections?)
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I currently have updated your test case, called
>>"FieldConversion_ForeigenKeyTest" - Please check out and have a look.
>>    
>>
>
>I am going to do so.
>
>  
>
>>The test case failed without your suggested modifications
>>(serviceBrokerHelper().getKeyValues(cld, newTxObject,false)
>>in Identity+TransactionImpl)
>>When I modify Identity.java (getKeyValues(cld, newTxObject,false))
>>    
>>
>
>That is the changed I had suggested earlier in this thread, isn't it?
>I feel uncomfortable with it, because it might change the behaviour
>elsewhere.  Somebody should investigate whether Identity is supposed
>to have the converted or non-converted fields.
>
>So I would weakly argue in favour of the above changes 
>to TransactionImpl.
>
>  
>
>>your test case was passed - without modify TransactionImpl.
>>But your argumentation makes sense, thus I will check in both
>>files with the "getKeyValues(cld, newTxObject,false" modification.
>>What do you mean?
>>    
>>
>
>The impact of changing class Identity is unforseeable to me,
>but I am a newbie.
>
>Regards,
>	Olli
>
>  
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <ol...@ppi.de>
>>To: <oj...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:54 AM
>>Subject: OJB123, RE: 0.9.8, ODMG: primary key with FieldConversion
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I am currently porting our stuff to current CSV head
>>>(OJB 0.9.9) and I am experiencing problems with this
>>>issue (OJB48 / OJB123).
>>>
>>>Armin, you introduced the PersistenceBrokerHelper.
>>>and in TransactionImpl, line 883, you do:
>>>
>>>Object[] objPkValues
>>> = this.getBroker().serviceBrokerHelper().getKeyValues(cld,
>>>      
>>>
>>newTxObject);
>>    
>>
>>>In this case, the field conversion should not take place.
>>>Since it does, I later reach
>>>
>>>assertFkAssignment():816, org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl
>>>assignReferenceFKs():841, org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl
>>>lock():260, org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl
>>>lockCollections():931, org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl
>>>register():782, org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl
>>>lock():289, org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl
>>>
>>>with refPkValues[0] instanceOf java.math.BigDecimal
>>>
>>>which results in the follwing exception:
>>>
>>>13954 ERROR [main] fieldaccess.PersistentFieldDefaultImpl - 
>>>      
>>>
>>while set
>>field:
>>    
>>
>>>[...]
>>>target field type: long
>>>object value class: java.math.BigDecimal
>>>[...]
>>>13969 ERROR [main] odmg.TransactionImpl - Locking obj [...] 
>>>      
>>>
>>with lock
>>mode 4
>>    
>>
>>>failed
>>>java.lang.IllegalArgumentException
>>>at
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>sun.reflect.UnsafeLongFieldAccessorImpl.set(UnsafeLongFieldAcc
>>essorImpl.
>>java
>>    
>>
>>>:84)
>>>at java.lang.reflect.Field.set(Field.java:519)
>>>at
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>org.apache.ojb.broker.metadata.fieldaccess.PersistentFieldDefa
>>ultImpl.se
>>t(Pe
>>    
>>
>>>rsistentFieldDefaultImpl.java:147)
>>>at
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.assertFkAssignment(Transac
>>tionImpl.j
>>ava:
>>    
>>
>>>816)
>>>at
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.assignReferenceFKs(Transac
>>tionImpl.j
>>ava:
>>    
>>
>>>841)
>>>at
>>>org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.lock(TransactionImpl.java:260)
>>>at
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.lockCollections(Transactio
>>nImpl.java
>>:931
>>    
>>
>>>)
>>>at
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.register(TransactionImpl.java:782)
>>    
>>
>>>at
>>>org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.lock(TransactionImpl.java:289)
>>>
>>>
>>>A potential fix is in TransactionImpl, line 883
>>>
>>>Object[] objPkValues
>>> = this.getBroker().serviceBrokerHelper().getKeyValues(cld,
>>>      
>>>
>>newTxObject,
>>    
>>
>>>false);  // added last parameter
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>I have not tried the test case that you, Armin, have introduced.
>>>If the test does not fail, there mightbe somethinng
>>>wrong with the test  (Missing collections?)
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Olli
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Armin Waibel [mailto:armin@code-au-lait.de]
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>The bug you describe reside in a part of OJB that wasn't
>>>>my special subject, thus the best thing I think is to post
>>>>a test case. I will check in the test ASAP.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: <ol...@ppi.de>
>>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>want to ask again.  I am pretty sure that
>>>>this bug is due to an issuficient fix for OJB48.
>>>>That fix just applies to the PersistenceBroker API,
>>>>but when using the ODMG API, a different
>>>>assertFKAssignment() method is used.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    
>>
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>    
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>  
>