Hi Tom, all
Congrats on the 2.0 release!
I've been continuing running the test sets on the Symfoware
platform.
May I ask you for you help with the following three issues?
1. Review of patch
I've added a patch with changes required for a number of
tests to
run. Could you review them, and if okay, commit them?
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288715
2. Where is table name "SEQUENCE" defined?
I tried renaming all occurrences of the word "SEQUENCE" in the
code
I could find but still some tests try to create a sequence
table
with table name SEQUENCE.
It starts with the 8th test in the JPA test set:
testTransitionToDeferedFailure
which tries a UPDATE SEQUENCE (...).
In the log I see even more:
[junit] [EL Config]:
ServerSession(1006920425)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--The
table
generator name defined within [class
org.eclipse.persistence.testing.models.jpa.inherited.Alpine]
is
being defaulted to: SEQUENCE.
and
[junit] [EL Fine]:
ServerSession(1006920425)--Connection(753758527)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--CREATE
TABLE SEQUENCE (SEQ_NAME VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, SEQ_COUNT
DECIMAL(18), PRIMARY KEY (SEQ_NAME))
[junit] java.sql.SQLException: [SymfoWARE ODBC
Driver][SymfoWARE
[...]
[junit] at
org.eclipse.persistence.testing.tests.jpa.advanced.concurrency.LifecycleJUnitTest.testSetup(LifecycleJUnitTest.java:76)
I believe these might be from the CONCURRENCYA, B and C
tables, or
ConcurrencyA, B and C entities. Each of them has
fieldID.setIsIdentity(true) resp. @GeneratedValue specified
but the
details of the sequence generators are omitted.
I though it would default to what the platform's
createPlatformDefaultSequence() method returns but apparently
not.
Many tests fail because of this issue.
3. Table locks during DROP TABLE
In the SymfowarePlatform wiki page you suggested that we
should
start by trying to get the Core SRG running first. Most are
passing
now.
Only a few (the ReadAllTest tests, which rely on
AutoTableGeneratorBasicTestModel.java) failed I think
because of
the
table lock issue.
The error message is:
Exception Description: 24 objects were read from the database,
but
originially there were, 12.
When I run it by itself through the test browser it passes
without
problems.
Some messages in the finest log let me believe this is
because a
problem
occurred while recreating the tables: they should have been
dropped and
recreated, thereby clearing those old 12 object, but because
of the
locking issue they were not.
[junit] Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLException: [SymfoWARE
ODBC
Driver][SymfoWARE Server] JYP3913E : Table "PHONE" being used
exclusively by another user.
[junit] Error Code: -3913
[junit] Call: drop table PHONE
[junit] Query: DataModifyQuery(sql="drop table PHONE")
[junit] at
org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException.sqlException(DatabaseException.java:324)
[..]
[junit] at
org.eclipse.persistence.testing.models.employee.relational.EmployeeSystem.dropTableConstraints(EmployeeSystem.java:86)
[junit] at
org.eclipse.persistence.testing.tests.schemaframework.AutoTableGeneratorEmployeeSystem.createTables(AutoTableGeneratorEmployeeSystem.java:32)
This table was created and accessed as follows:
1. drop (index) and table (outside transaction)
DROP TABLE PHONE
2. create table (and index) (in transaction), same connection
CREATE TABLE PHONE (EMP_ID NUMERIC(15) NOT NULL, TYPE
VARCHAR(15)
NOT NULL, AREA_CODE VARCHAR(3), P_NUMBER VARCHAR(7), PRIMARY
KEY
(EMP_ID, TYPE))
3. insert 30 rows (in single transaction), same connection
INSERT INTO PHONE (TYPE, AREA_CODE, P_NUMBER, EMP_ID) VALUES
(?, ?,
?, ?)
[junit] bind => [Home, 613, 5551234, 105]
4. drop (index) and table (outside transaction), different
connection
DROP TABLE PHONE
-> SQLException saying PHONE is locked.
I can reproduce this in a simple JDBC application. If I
close the
connection used in steps 1-3 before step 4 it works fine.
I can see some session swapping is done in
AutoTableGeneratorBasicTestModel#addForcedRequiredSystems()
so I
tried adding a reset() invocation at the start of its
addForcedRequiredSystems() method but that did not help.
How can I make it close the physical connection?
(You mentioned adding logic into TestSystem?)
The lock issue occurs much more often in the JPA test set. The
first
failing test however is because of the reserved SEQUENCE
keyword
used as table name, so if you could help me in the right
direction
with the above three issues I can try move forward with this
test
set again.
Thanks!
Dies
Tom Ware wrote:
Hi Dies,
FYI: I am working on integrating your initial patch. There
are a
couple of items I will not be integrating at the moment:
1. Specific references to SymfowarePlatform and
isSymfowarePlatform(). These will be left until
SymfowarePlatform
becomes part of the full product
2. Changes to default SEQUENCE table name to "\"SEQUENCE\""
for
our
Sessions and project XML (in XMLSessionConfigProject,
ObjectPersistenceRuntimeXMLProject and SequencingConfig).
This is
simply to big a backward compatibility risk since I cannot
test
these changes on every database platform that EclipseLink is
run on
by our customers. I am looking for some way of having this
information stored on the DatabasePlatform, but at the
moment, it
is not looking good. Assuming I do not find a good solution,
Symfoware users will simply have to explicitly set these
items
when
using our proprietary configuration code (sessions.xml and
deployment.xml) We will also have to address anywhere in the
tests
we choose to run where this is an issue.
I am in the process of running testing on the other changes
and
I'll let you know when it gets checked in.
-Tom
Dies Koper wrote:
Hi Tom,
I have added the outstanding issues with SQL keywords in
table/columns names, and maximum precision. The biggest open
issue
is of course the drop table restriction. I'm looking
forward to
hearing what solution(s) you can come up with.
Thanks!
Dies
Tom Ware wrote:
Hi Dies,
I am moving some of the main points of this discussion to
the
wiki page so I can more easily keep track of where we are:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/Development/Incubator/Extensions/SymfowarePlatform#Open_Issues
I started by just adding some basics about the main issues
that
are getting in the way at the moment. I plan to add more
detail
next week. Please feel free to add other issues I have
missed, or
more detail.
As for some of the other things you were wondering about:
1. Your initial patch (including sequencing fixes etc.). I
hope
to find some time to start integrating it next week
2. EclipseLink bug 286907 (not related to Symfoware
platform)-
this bug is in the queue and will be addressed in sequence
with
the other bugs. The fact that you have submitted a patch
means it
will potentially jump other bugs in the queue. At the
moment
I am
going to focus on the Symfoware Platform issues with my
free
time, so I can't make any promises about when it will be
included.
3. GlassFish bug 9179 (not related to Symfoware platform) -
same
thing as above, but additionally: we cannot legally make
use of
the submitted patch until it is attached to EclipseLink
bug by
someone with IP rights
I'll get started looking for some solutions next week.
-Tom