Activity
From 09/02/2024 to 10/01/2024
10/01/2024
- 09:55 AM Bug #9224: conversion of sql table name honors FWD reserved words
- A legacy table named @Property@ will have a sql table name of @Property_@ - this is because FWD has a reserved name t...
- 09:52 AM Bug #9224 (New): conversion of sql table name honors FWD reserved words
- 08:47 AM Bug #9222: Validation of a record buffer throws an error in FWD, but does not in 4GL
- This ticket is derived from #9181-10.
- 08:47 AM Bug #9222: Validation of a record buffer throws an error in FWD, but does not in 4GL
- ...
- 08:45 AM Bug #9222 (New): Validation of a record buffer throws an error in FWD, but does not in 4GL
- 08:39 AM Feature #9218: Changes in internal tenant management
- My concern is for any interface (now or introduced later) which takes that tenant id. It is just more secure if the ...
- 08:31 AM Feature #9218: Changes in internal tenant management
- I did additional research and found "this":https://docs.progress.com/bundle/openedge-database-multitenancy-117/page/T...
09/30/2024
- 02:38 PM Feature #9218: Changes in internal tenant management
- > ** @0@ for default tenant,
> ** incrementing positive values for regular tenants
> ** decrementing negative valu... - 02:23 PM Feature #9218: Changes in internal tenant management
- After initial iteration implementation some changes in the management of FWD internal management of tenant feature.
... - 02:22 PM Feature #9218 (New): Changes in internal tenant management
09/25/2024
- 02:58 PM Feature #9057 (WIP): enable intermixed access to default tenant (shared) data and tenant-specific...
- First, a short description of the current state from the implementation standpoint. All low-level data management for...
- 09:53 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- I am moving this to Normal priority as the regression in #9189 was fixed by reverting the original changes. We can ha...
- 06:28 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- So this means that converting to client where is the only way to go here? I suppose so.
- 06:26 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> Hmm I see. This is because it will end up as @null ne 0@ and this is basically true. This y... - 06:17 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- Hmm I see. This is because it will end up as @null ne 0@ and this is basically true. This you also happen for cases w...
- 06:08 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- Lorian Sandu wrote:
> I will investigate deeper to see if this case is simplified as @BOOL_FALSE@
Actually, this ... - 05:51 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- I looked into @FQLPreprocessor.mainWalk()@ and found out how we handle the cases @tablename.extField[?]@ , where the ...
- 04:37 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> Lorian, please attempt 2) in 9133a. It means replacing invalid @tablename.extField[id]@ wit... - 03:21 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- > In the customer application, the second preprocessor, even if it is created, it is never actually used. This is why...
09/24/2024
- 07:44 PM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- I think I have the question for why before 9095a the incorrect FQL (containing references of form @<tablename>.null@)...
- 01:01 PM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- I will do a quick summary here. Let's assume we have a @tablename@ table with a @extField@ and a local integer variab...
- 10:30 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- I really fear the impact of client where. For the first query you posted: if that query would run over a persistent d...
- 05:25 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- >Lorian please, do such experiment and post the Java conversion of buf1.f1[i1] vs buf1.f1[buf1.f2]. Are these process...
- 03:56 AM Bug #9133 (WIP): Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the...
- > Ovidiu/Alexandru: Please review.
I don't think changing the grandparent is always correct.
* You can have @for...
09/23/2024
- 10:38 AM Bug #9133 (Review): Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in ...
- Committed to @9133a / rev 15454@
Ovidiu/Alexandru: Please review. - 07:50 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- Lorian, please put this change in a branch and move this into Review.
- 06:50 AM Bug #9133 (WIP): Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the...
- I looked into how @AbstractQuery.preprocessSubstituionArguments@ behaves in terms of error handling. I found out that...
- 09:19 AM Bug #9194: FWD selects the wrong index when using CONTAINS?
- Good findings. Please edit the wiki page to include your important clarifications.
- 07:26 AM Bug #9194: FWD selects the wrong index when using CONTAINS?
- Greg Shah wrote (note #8357-130):
> [[p2j:Chapter_27_Sorting_Query_Results#Single-Index-Selection-Rules|Index Select... - 05:40 AM Bug #9194: FWD selects the wrong index when using CONTAINS?
- Here's a summary of what happened so far:
*Example 1*
{{collapse
Working with a table @test@ that has two indexe... - 05:15 AM Bug #9194: FWD selects the wrong index when using CONTAINS?
- In #8357, it was brought to our attention that FWD selects the wrong index in a query that has the @CONTAINS@ clause....
- 04:50 AM Bug #9194 (WIP): FWD selects the wrong index when using CONTAINS?
09/20/2024
- 07:28 AM Bug #9133: Array subscript is out of range stops the evaluation of other expressions in the where...
- For awareness, I am raising the priority of this task in relation to #9189.
09/18/2024
- 02:17 PM Bug #9036: Multi-tenancy: refactor the database in Persistence context-wise
- Ovidiu
There is a regression when accessing remote databases.
Please see #6667-1160
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 ...
Also available in: Atom