Hi Gordon,
please find my updated implementation attached. Now, there's only one
test failing,
EntityManagerJUnitTestSuite.testIgnoreRemovedObjectsOnDatabaseSync
This test leaves a lock on the database and should be commented out when
running entity-persistence-tests.
Thanks,
-- markus.
Markus Fuchs wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
> please find my updated implementation attached. Cascading deletes for
> simple OneToOne and OneToMany self-relationships (like the one
> mentioned in issue 1597) can now be handled. Many of the changes are
> due to the fact that DeleteObjectQuery now extends WriteObjectQuery,
> as I changed the method declarations from a DeleteObjectQuery to
> WriteObjectQuery.
>
> I get 33 failures running entity-persistence-tests, which I haven't
> investigated yet. Please take a look. I marked some open questions by
> // TODO: ...
>
> and hope, we can discuss them by phone! My main questions are:
>
> 1. Do we continue to check for the owning / non-owning relationship
> side in ForeignReferenceMapping.shouldObjectModifyCascadeToParts, or
> can this be done the pre-/post- insert/update/delete methods?
> 2. Can we skip calculating ChangeSets for deleted object?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- markus.
>
> Markus Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi Gordon,
>>
>> I have a couple of questions about the implementation for issue 1597.
>> Could you please take a look?
>>
>> 1. Why have all the queries in DescriptorQueryManager the property
>> isUserDefined == true? Other (non-cached) queries created during
>> commit have isUserDefined == false. Can the queries in
>> DescriptorQueryManager be user-defined? (This is resolved, but I'm
>> wondering what the property isUserDefined means...)
>> 2. Does preDelete have to distinguish between the owning / non-owning
>> side of the relationship?
>> 3. Does preDelete have to distinguish between privatly owned/non
>> privately owned parts?
>> 4. What if the referenced side is removed first in a uni-directional
>> relationship? (The referenced side doesn't know, if there is a
>> referencing instance)
>>
>> My current implementation is attached, if you're interested.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -- markus.