You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/7.0.1
Build Identifier:
After creating and starting new database testing, and altering the
user, schema, password and authorization to testing, a (simple) UDF is created in the testing schema. Single calls work, but when called in batch simultaneous one or more TypeExceptions are thrown.
Just an insight from release-engineering point of view. When this bug isn't closed/nextrelease, it won't show up (automatically) on the list of closed bugs for the next release. Since this will go unnoticed for sure, it means this bug isn't listed where it is, and with the current automation, will be reported as fixed for the release afterwards (assuming it'll be closed by then).
So how about using the Keywords field to add a status like NEEDSTEST or something, such that the bug itself can remain closed?
I just noticed, that closed bug with request for more information, feedback, or validation by the original reported "vanish" unnoticed, because they do no longer appear as open bugs.
in general, we would need three major categories:
open (and that includes open but needs more info)
fixed, but still needs feedback, info, validation, test, etc.
Date: 2011-10-13 16:27:28 +0200
From: @bartscheers
To: SQL devs <>
Version: 11.5.3 (Aug2011-SP1) [obsolete]
CC: @njnes, @drstmane
Last updated: 2011-10-26 13:22:03 +0200
Comment 16405
Date: 2011-10-13 16:27:28 +0200
From: @bartscheers
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/7.0.1
Build Identifier:
After creating and starting new database testing, and altering the
user, schema, password and authorization to testing, a (simple) UDF is created in the testing schema. Single calls work, but when called in batch simultaneous one or more TypeExceptions are thrown.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
CREATE FUNCTION rad(d DOUBLE) RETURNS DOUBLE BEGIN RETURN d * PI() / 180; END;
seq 50
; do DOTMONETDBFILE=.testing mclient -dtesting -s"SELECT rad(55.81689);" & doneActual Results:
Several exceptions like:
TypeException:user.s1_17[4]:'user.rad' undefined in: _7:any := user.rad(_6:dbl)
SQLException:SQLengine:Program contains errors
Expected Results:
50 times:
+------------------------+
| rad_single_value |
+========================+
| 0.97418850872349771 |
+------------------------+
1 tuple
See also bug #2903
Comment 16409
Date: 2011-10-14 08:46:17 +0200
From: @njnes
Changeset 08e5fe124329 made by Niels Nes niels@cwi.nl in the MonetDB repo, refers to this bug.
For complete details, see http//devmonetdborg/hg/MonetDB?cmd=changeset;node=08e5fe124329
Changeset description:
Comment 16410
Date: 2011-10-14 08:46:45 +0200
From: @njnes
fixed by always cleanup the sql function list.
Comment 16414
Date: 2011-10-14 08:56:19 +0200
From: @njnes
*** Bug #2902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16423
Date: 2011-10-14 10:14:28 +0200
From: @drstmane
re-opened to remind us that we should consider adding a test.
Comment 16424
Date: 2011-10-14 10:23:01 +0200
From: @grobian
Just an insight from release-engineering point of view. When this bug isn't closed/nextrelease, it won't show up (automatically) on the list of closed bugs for the next release. Since this will go unnoticed for sure, it means this bug isn't listed where it is, and with the current automation, will be reported as fixed for the release afterwards (assuming it'll be closed by then).
So how about using the Keywords field to add a status like NEEDSTEST or something, such that the bug itself can remain closed?
Comment 16425
Date: 2011-10-14 11:25:56 +0200
From: @drstmane
That would indeed be an option.
I just noticed, that closed bug with request for more information, feedback, or validation by the original reported "vanish" unnoticed, because they do no longer appear as open bugs.
in general, we would need three major categories:
Comment 16427
Date: 2011-10-14 12:54:05 +0200
From: @njnes
the test of both bugs is the same (the schema part doens't make a difference), ie only one needs a test.
Comment 16429
Date: 2011-10-14 13:00:57 +0200
From: @drstmane
is there a test for bug #2902 (which is marked as dublicate of this one), then?
Comment 16437
Date: 2011-10-17 14:21:54 +0200
From: @sjoerdmullender
Test was added.
Comment 16438
Date: 2011-10-17 14:27:15 +0200
From: @sjoerdmullender
Changeset f1b05d742f8f made by Sjoerd Mullender sjoerd@acm.org in the MonetDB repo, refers to this bug.
For complete details, see http//devmonetdborg/hg/MonetDB?cmd=changeset;node=f1b05d742f8f
Changeset description:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: