Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Different FileMapper call 3.0.0 to 3.0.2 #92

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
pesse opened this issue Jul 17, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #96
Closed

Different FileMapper call 3.0.0 to 3.0.2 #92

pesse opened this issue Jul 17, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #96
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@pesse
Copy link
Member

pesse commented Jul 17, 2019

The FileMapper has a different behaviour regarding parameters in versions 3.0.0 to 3.0.2:

3.0.2: https://github.com/utPLSQL/utPLSQL/blob/v3.0.2/source/core/ut_file_mapper.pkb#L69
3.0.3: https://github.com/utPLSQL/utPLSQL/blob/v3.0.3/source/core/ut_file_mapper.pkb#L75

So with the current calling, versions 3.0.0 to 3.0.2 will not get default TypeMapping when no explicit mapping is passed.

This can be solved by introducing a Compatiblity-Version of FileMapper similar to the one we have for TestRunnerStatement. For 3.0.0 to 3.0.2 we should not pass arguments that are NULL or empty (in respect of utPLSQL/utPLSQL-cli#162).
From 3.0.3 on we can stay with the current approach of passing all parameters.

@pesse pesse added the bug label Jul 17, 2019
@pesse pesse added this to the 3.1.8 milestone Jul 17, 2019
@jgebal
Copy link
Member

jgebal commented Jul 17, 2019

There is different solution That I'd like to suggest.

Work without compatibility-version of FileMapper.

You need to always use method of providing only the defined parameters and leave rest undefined (to not provide them to the PLSQL procedure call). That way, you always rely on default values for a given version.

This would be aligned with solution you had in mind for 3.0.0-3.0.2
This solution will apply to all versions released up till now.
We do not plan/envision any majo changes to file-mapper logic as it works perfectly as it is now.

@pesse
Copy link
Member Author

pesse commented Jul 18, 2019

Yes, this is a much better solution, thanks for bringing it up.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants