Re: [eclipselink-dev] [Bug 338727] There are two new failures with WDF t

["Goerler, Adrian" <adrian.goerler@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Andrei,

I have prepared a patch to skip these tests as suggested:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=196776

OK If I check this in today or are there restrictions in place currently?  

-Adrian

Adrian Görler
SAP AG

Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrei Ilitchev [mailto:andrei.ilitchev@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Freitag, 27. Mai 2011 16:10
To: Goerler, Adrian
Cc: James Sutherland; Dev mailing list for Eclipse Persistence Services
Subject: Re: [Bug 338727] There are two new failures with WDF testing on JavaSE

I am ok with skipping the test for now.

I would put a comment with the test referencing the bug to be fixed for 
the test to be uncommented.

Also for
Bug 338727 - There are two new failures with WDF testing on JavaSE
I would set the status as a duplication of (or blocked by?)
Bug 338783 - delete query fails with optimistic lock exception if JDBC 
batching is enabled on Oracle

Thanks,
Andrei

On 5/27/2011 9:41 AM, Goerler, Adrian wrote:
> Hi James, Andrei, others,
>
> basically, I don't know how to proceed. I have proposed a patch for this issue that seems to work but Andrei is having some concerns with. My knowledge of Oracle and EL batching is too limited to provide a better patch.
>
> This issue occurs if you are using JDBC batching with an Oracle10 (or higher) platform. However, my understanding is that on Oracle "native batching" should be used anyhow. I could skip the test if an Oracle10 (or higher) platform is used. Or one could rewrite the test so that it uses native batching on Oracle.
>
> As Indigo is closing in, I don't think we should patch trunk for such an exotic corner case at the moment. Skipping the two test would be the best option from my point of view.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Sutherland [mailto:JAMES.SUTHERLAND@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2011 19:06
> To: Goerler, Adrian
> Subject: RE: [Bug 338727] There are two new failures with WDF testing on JavaSE
>
> I just noticed this bug as listed under the current builds test failures, but was marked as fixed.
> So, obviously it was not fixed, otherwise the test would no longer be failing.  The bug should not be closed until the test passes, as it is a test bug.
>
> The parent bug seems to be still open.  I don't think the proposed patch fixes the entire issue, a more thorough fix is required.
> I can reivew an updated patch if you wish to work on one.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Goerler, Adrian [mailto:adrian.goerler@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:40 AM
> To: James Sutherland
> Subject: RE: [Bug 338727] There are two new failures with WDF testing on
> JavaSE
>
>
> Hi James,
>
> did you try to apply
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=190269
>
> proposed for the parent bug 338783? This should fix this issue.
>
> (I don't have an Oracle-DB at hand currently, so I can't double-check this).
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> Adrian Görler
> SAP AG
>
> Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
> http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2011 17:02
> To: Goerler, Adrian
> Subject: [Bug 338727] There are two new failures with WDF testing on JavaSE
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=338727
> Product/Component: EclipseLink / JPA
>
> James<james.sutherland@xxxxxxxxxx>  changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>               Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
>                   CC|                            |james.sutherland@xxxxxxxxxx
>           Resolution|FIXED                       |
>
> --- Comment #4 from James<james.sutherland@xxxxxxxxxx>  2011-05-26 11:02:01 EDT ---
> The JPA 2.0 issue was fixed, but not the optimistic lock error, which is the
> reason for this bug.
>