Activity
From 08/18/2024 to 09/16/2024
09/16/2024
- 08:55 AM Bug #9036 (Test): Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Branch 9036b was committed to trunk as r15442 then it was archived.
- 08:40 AM Bug #9036 (Merge Pending): Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Please merge 9036b to trunk now.
09/14/2024
- 09:09 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- The fix works fine, no more errors and appservers are working too.
- 08:29 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Eugenie, please find the changed file attached.
Thanks, I'll test now and be back with r... - 08:17 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eugenie, please find the changed file attached.
- 08:12 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Eugenie Lyzenko wrote:
> > I also have the issue with trunk @15440@:
> > And some appserv... - 08:04 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eugenie Lyzenko wrote:
> I also have the issue with trunk @15440@:
> And some appservers are now failing to be star...
09/13/2024
- 07:43 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- I also have the issue with trunk @15440@ and a large GUI app:...
- 03:27 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- After Constantin picked 9036a changes from the latest trunk, he identified a problem with one of the @Tenant@ fields,...
- 01:55 PM Bug #9036 (Test): Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Branch 9036a was committed to trunk as r15440 then it was archived.
- 01:17 PM Bug #9036 (Merge Pending): Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- 01:17 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Please merge 9036a to trunk now.
- 12:54 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- The smoke test went fine. I guess we are ready to merge. While the database was imported, I already rebased the branc...
- 11:46 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- I will. But first, I need to import the full database because the unit-test is performed with a reduced instance. I w...
- 11:28 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu, please smoke test the GUI app for which you ran unit testing. If you can log in, open a few screens, and ther...
- 09:40 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eric,
Actually, there was no lock issue. FWD behaved like 4GL. The problem was the test conditions in AWS. I execute...
09/12/2024
- 12:53 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu, please notify us when the lock release defect we discussed earlier is resolved. We will need to re-run the re...
09/11/2024
- 02:21 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- ETF testing passed, the other REST app also passed.
- 02:14 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- My unittests of one of the larger customers finished with success. I used the prebuilt binaries. In fact, 9036a/r1544...
- 12:21 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- All: please proceed with the test plan.
- 11:47 AM Bug #9036 (Internal Test): Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Code review 9036a/15442-15444:
> @builtin_functions.rules@ needs a history entry.
I had th... - 03:08 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Server startup fails with this:...
- 02:57 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu, 9036a does not compile with Java 8:...
09/10/2024
- 06:58 PM Bug #9036 (Review): Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu, please post here again when the review is addressed and set this to "Internal Test" status. My points are pre...
- 06:48 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Code review 9036a/15442-15444:
Nice work, Ovidiu. My findings...
@builtin_functions.rules@ needs a history entr... - 05:33 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eric,
I committed my changes and rebased the branch to latest trunk. Current revision is 15444.
The conversion cha... - 03:25 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- As discussed in recent standups, the current plan is to defer the metadata work and finish the core refactoring for t...
- 08:10 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- First, the good news.
It seems that a tenant change cannot be performed while in a database transaction. In case thi... - 09:12 AM Bug #9160: trackDatabase() is not called for buffers with openscope 0 resulting in improper clean...
@main.p@...- 09:03 AM Bug #9160 (New): trackDatabase() is not called for buffers with openscope 0 resulting in improper...
09/09/2024
- 05:30 PM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- This is actually happening in the case of one of our customer, so it needs to be fixed. See #7143-1204.
The (anony...
09/06/2024
- 07:13 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Short update on task status:
* I managed to get a stable revision of 9036a after the rebase. Committed revision 1543...
09/05/2024
- 07:20 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- > When writing 4GL code and the tenant is changed, this MUST happen outside any transaction. All buffers must be flus...
- 08:03 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- I fixed locking in tenant mode. The fields of @Tenant@ container which must be final are wrapped in a new class which...
- 05:06 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> The second issue is that the SysError @tt already exists@ is not caught in a catch block, the...
09/04/2024
- 04:50 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Go ahead and move fields from @Context@ to @Tenant@ as needed. Keep in mind that all fields in @Tenant@ must be immut...
- 02:46 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- As part of my tests of the 9036a/15426 I used two concurrent users which execute basic CRUD operations on the databas...
- 01:50 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- The changes in 9036a/15426 look good to me. What is left to implement for this task to be complete (not considering #...
- 03:33 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- ...
- 03:32 AM Bug #9133 (Internal Test): Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressi...
09/03/2024
- 07:44 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- No, you are right. That was just my brain being lazy.
I addressed the issue. Also, I fixed a problem with re-initial... - 05:53 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Actually, I used the database name, in lowercase. That was also to make sure there are no c... - 10:15 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Greg Shah wrote:
> > [...] The table-level annotation can help us with our implementation o... - 09:58 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Actually, I used the database name, in lowercase. That was also to make sure there are no conflicts with the default ...
- 07:54 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> > The default tenant's @Tenant@ object would be created when the @Persistence@ object is in... - 08:54 AM Bug #9127: Decimal values with precision over 50 can't be inserted in the persistent databases.
- Values like @4000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@, with more than 40 digits, can be stored in OE persisten...
- 08:48 AM Bug #9127 (New): Decimal values with precision over 50 can't be inserted in the persistent databa...
- 07:22 AM Feature #5219: implement native full-text search for word index and CONTAINS support
- > The exploration and possible use of database native support to implement CONTAINS support is considered part of thi...
09/02/2024
- 05:16 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> > But why do you mean by breaking the encapsulation? Pinning the @... - 03:56 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Greg Shah wrote:
> [...] The table-level annotation can help us with our implementation of shared vs multi-tenant ta... - 07:41 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- > 2. Switching to multi-tenant database mode requires reconversion
Please note that an important objective of our ...
08/30/2024
- 06:06 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> But why do you mean by breaking the encapsulation? Pinning the @Persistence@ object to a sp... - 02:40 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> I've also been thinking more about the "need to reconvert for multi-tenancy mode" aspect we ... - 02:27 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> We discussed this, but I don't think it is a settled point yet. If we revert the changes you... - 01:44 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- I've also been thinking more about the "need to reconvert for multi-tenancy mode" aspect we discussed. We noted that ...
- 01:27 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
>
> *1. A @Persistence@ object for a logical database is not enough*
>
> My commits in 9... - 11:58 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- The investigations for _meta database lead me to other issues. We discussed today and here is a summary of our meet.
... - 09:06 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- To summarize, there are 2 issues. The first one is that @no-error@ is not honored in FWD when a handle is deleted and...
08/29/2024
- 09:40 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Replacing @ErrorManager.recordOrThrowError@ with @ErrorManager.recordOrShowDatabaseError@ did not solve the issue.
- 08:28 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- For errors conditions being raised when database is accessed, we found quirks which we solved via calling @ErrorManag...
- 08:02 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- ...
- 07:59 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- ...
- 06:18 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- start.p...
- 05:02 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Coming back to #9091-37, it looks like proc2 should not be executed at all, but it is execute... - 04:50 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Coming back to #9091-37, it looks like proc2 should not be executed at all, but it is executed in FWD, which causes t...
- 03:32 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- In @ProcedureManager.delete()@...
- 02:54 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- start.p...
- 07:11 AM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- > But the information is pretty much similar (like @_File@ and related tables).
These databases share the same ex...
08/28/2024
- 06:42 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Earlier today I committed my latest changes to 9036a and rebased the branch to latest trunk. The current revision is ...
- 08:28 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> ... and used @run checkNew.@ in @proc1@ and in the @finally@ block of @start.p@. In bot... - 07:51 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- As far as I know, errors like @tt already exists@ are not supposed to be caught with @catch e as Progress.Lang.Error@...
- 07:38 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- In FWD, tt is flushed 3 times, at the create, on the associate of the dataset (throws the error) and when exiting the...
- 07:23 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Adding @release tt@ in proc1 after the creates causes the error not to be caught in 4gl, this matches the behavior in...
- 06:53 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- I've added this in @parser.p@:...
- 06:50 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Could running of a procedure with an output parameter cause a flush and expose the errors in the procedures ran previ...
- 06:49 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Another test: use a secondary buffer @def buffer buftt1 for tt1.@ in @proc1@ instead of ... - 06:45 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> OK, now test in OpenEdge with a @TABLE@ parameter instead of @DATASET@, add a @proc3@ wi... - 06:43 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Another test: use a secondary buffer @def buffer buftt1 for tt1.@ in @proc1@ instead of the implicit buffer, and test...
- 06:42 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- OK, now test in OpenEdge with a @TABLE@ parameter instead of @DATASET@, add a @proc3@ with a @def output parameter ta...
- 06:42 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- proc2 does not seem to be executed, however, if the output parameter is not used, the error is no longer thrown at al...
- 06:34 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- ...
- 06:18 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Add a @MESSAGE@ statement in proc2, so we know if that proc2 body is executed or not. Also, test this with and witho...
- 06:00 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- start.p...
- 05:52 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> No, the output of @ex:getMessage(1)@.
@tt already exists...@
- 05:45 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> > Who exactly throws this error - @reader:sax-parse()@ or @run p... - 05:44 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> > What is the error message being caught in OpenEdge?
> Caught... - 05:43 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Who exactly throws this error - @reader:sax-parse()@ or @run proc2@?
@run proc2@
- 05:42 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> What is the error message being caught in OpenEdge?
Caught exception! - 05:42 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- What is the error message being caught in OpenEdge? Who exactly throws this error - @reader:sax-parse()@ or @run proc...
- 05:31 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- The parser is a program designed to parse an XML file and insert the data in the temp tables defined in it. The error...
- 05:17 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- start.p...
- 05:15 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- It seems like the external procedure is deleted at the end of the main program and all of it's resources are closed, ...
08/26/2024
- 08:49 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- I've added MESSAGE statements like this:
* main.p... - 04:39 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- In @ProcedureManager@, for @External.execute()@, there are 3 finalizables objects added to the @finalizables@ set, on...
- 08:08 AM Feature #7960 (Test): Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- 08:08 AM Feature #7960: Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- Branch 7960a merged to *trunk as rev. 15394* and archived.
- 06:36 AM Feature #7960 (Merge Pending): Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- I am OK with the changes. Please go ahead and merge 7960a to trunk.
08/24/2024
- 09:03 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- 9036a branch was updated. Latest revision is 15388.
Changes:
* Improve database awareness of tenant information;
...
08/23/2024
- 08:52 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> Considering that the proc1 is an internalProcedure, is persistent and the @staticResources@ i... - 08:48 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Considering that the proc1 is an internalProcedure, is persistent and the @staticResources@ is empty, could someone s...
- 07:58 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- In @scopeFinished@ for the proc1, the procedure gets deleted only if it is external and not persistent,
which in th... - 07:18 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- On @popScope@ of the buffer, @finishedImpl@ is not executed, instead the @worldScope@ attribute is set to true.
- 04:32 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- @target.finished()@ for a @BufferManager@ does...
- 03:54 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- The buffer is in @PersistentProcScope@, but the problem is still persisting, @target.finished()@ is called to soon or...
- 03:27 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- The opening of the scope in the external procedure is correct. To propagate it, FWD is checking if the procedure was ...
- 03:19 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- When using @run proc1 in external@, the conversion for @external.p@ is ...
08/22/2024
- 06:34 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- 9036a branch was updated. Latest revision is 15387.
Changes:
* Made @Database@ objects tenant-friendly;
* Started ... - 02:17 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- To summary (hopefully most or all of) our discussion today...
*@Database@ Object Use*
We agreed that we want to... - 01:30 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- > I did not see that attribute in the @.df@ file I have. The table @test@ is defined as:[...]
I think that attribu... - 01:05 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- Radu,
I did not see that attribute in the @.df@ file I have. The table @test@ is defined as:... - 12:02 PM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- Radu got to the schema answer before I could post. :)
> I do not think the tables from different tenants can be in... - 11:48 AM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> But in order to generate that, the information must come from somewhere. How is this inform... - 11:32 AM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- Yep, I forgot about the DMO annotations.
But in order to generate that, the information must come from somewhere. H... - 10:37 AM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- I don't think this is correct.
The default database and the tenant databases have the same exact schema. There is... - 08:45 AM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- If I understand it correctly, when a database is declared (generically speaking) we get the following information:
#... - 07:33 AM Feature #9093: add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables that are ...
- When running import, the user should be able to optionally force the import to limit itself to one the following:
... - 07:28 AM Feature #9093 (Closed): add protection for multi-tenant imports to optionally only import tables ...
- 09:28 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- In @TransactionManager.processFinalazables()@, the record buffer is missing from the @blk.finalizables@ when using @r...
- 09:16 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Artur Școlnic wrote:
> @run external.p@ is converted as an externalProcedure.
> [...] is converted as an internalPr... - 09:11 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- I meant that the @proc1@ is @internalProcedure@....
- 09:09 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- I converted the example in #9091-11 and I get:...
- 08:45 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- @run external.p@ is converted as an externalProcedure....
- 08:27 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> Who is causing the release of @tt@ the second time? The first time it is clear.
I added ... - 08:16 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Who is causing the release of @tt@ the second time? The first time it is clear.
- 08:10 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Releasing tt after the second create does cause the error to be thrown.
- 08:03 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- Artur, the first record that you created is flushed to the database because you re-use the buffer (causing an implici...
- 07:57 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- @getUnvalidatedIndices@ returns null because the unique bit set is being checked against the Map of properties touche...
- 07:32 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- When using composite indices in this context, @getUnvalidatedIndices@ returns null instead of the bit set representin...
- 06:26 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- main.p...
- 06:18 AM Bug #9091 (WIP): Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- 06:18 AM Bug #9091: Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- This ticket is derived from #8912-216.
- 06:17 AM Bug #9091 (WIP): Unique composite index is ignored when create is used in an external procedure
- 03:44 AM Feature #7960: Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- Committed on *7960a rev. 15355* formatting changes.
The testing plan has been successfully completed, please refer...
08/20/2024
- 02:26 PM Feature #7960: Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- Only small formatting issues:
* return javadoc doesn't need to have the type; only the description of the returned v... - 08:42 AM Feature #7960 (Internal Test): Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- 12:13 PM Bug #9078: emit FindQuery as (reused) variables
- There is another point here. When a Java method gets called 10k's of times, then the local-var FIND will be created ...
- 11:13 AM Bug #9078: emit FindQuery as (reused) variables
- A @FIND@ statement can be executed 10k's or more just for simple API calls. This requires, for each execution:
* a ... - 11:00 AM Bug #9078 (Review): emit FindQuery as (reused) variables
08/19/2024
- 05:45 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- > I think the best solution is a runtime flag (in @directory.xml@)
Whether or not a table is shared or multi-tena... - 05:04 PM Bug #9036 (WIP): Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Multiple issue reported in my previous note are caused because some objects are cached locally, in different persiste...
- 08:26 AM Feature #7960: Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- Ioana-Cristina Prioteasa wrote:
> Made a small error in @CentralLoggerFile@ at @fileCount@ and @fileLimit@ condition... - 07:48 AM Feature #7960: Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- Made a small error in @CentralLoggerFile@ at @fileCount@ and @fileLimit@ conditions. Resolved it and committed the fi...
- 05:47 AM Feature #7960: Allow query logs to be collected in a H2 database
- Addressed code review.
I retested the scenario where @filepath@ is null or empty, as I was concerned about potentia... - 03:47 AM Feature #9057: enable intermixed access to default tenant (shared) data and tenant-specific data
- Greg Shah wrote:
> OE knows whether a table is shared (default tenant) or is multi-tenant. In OE, setting the tenan...
08/18/2024
- 05:51 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- I have created task branch 9036a and committed the changes to problems I encountered. Latest revision is 15386. Below...
Also available in: Atom