Bugzilla Version 2.16.7
Bugzilla Bug 1792
  fix bind parameter order handling
     Query page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 1792   Platform:   Reporter: martin-fuchs at gmx dot net (Martin Fuchs)
Product:   OS:   Add CC:
Component:   Version:   CC:
Remove selected CCs
Status: CLOSED   Priority:  
Resolution: FIXED   Severity:  
Assigned To: werner dot guttmann at gmx dot net (Werner Guttmann)   Target Milestone:  
URL:
Summary:

Attachment Type Modified Status Actions
proposed patch including CTF tests for basic OQL queries patch 2004-11-26 14:07 none Edit
updated patch patch 2004-11-26 14:07 none Edit
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 1792 depends on: 1788 Show dependency tree
Show dependency graph
Bug 1792 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments:


Leave as CLOSED FIXED
Reopen bug

View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing

Description: Opened: 2004-11-13 10:28

While writing the OQL test cases I encountered another problem introduced by 
the LIMIT/OFFSET changes. The attached patch fixes this errors by removing the 
old bind parameter map. Handling of bind parameter order is now completely 
handled by SqlBindParser - there's no need for ParamInfo to know about this 
information.

------- Additional Comment #1 From Martin Fuchs 2004-11-13 10:29 -------
Created an attachment (id=772)
proposed patch including CTF tests for basic OQL queries

------- Additional Comment #2 From Werner Guttmann 2004-11-19 12:33 -------
How does/did the problem manifest itself ? 

------- Additional Comment #3 From Martin Fuchs 2004-11-19 15:14 -------
The problem shows up, if you execute queries like "... where id between $2 and 
$1": If the bind variables are not used in ascending order, their values are 
used in the wrong order. ("... between $1 and $2" in this case"

------- Additional Comment #4 From Werner Guttmann 2004-11-22 03:29 -------
Martin, your patch includes code that has been posted as part of bug 1788. Can
you please remove this from and repost the patch ?

------- Additional Comment #5 From Martin Fuchs 2004-11-22 11:54 -------
Well, I didn't know, which of the bug reports you would process first, so they
contain partially the same test cases. Let's wait until after commiting of bug
1788, and then separate the two patches.

------- Additional Comment #6 From Werner Guttmann 2004-11-22 13:28 -------
Bug 1788 has been committed. Time for a spring-time cleaning session .. ;-).

------- Additional Comment #7 From Werner Guttmann 2004-11-26 03:45 -------
Just marking this bug (eventually) as fixed .. ;-).

------- Additional Comment #8 From Werner Guttmann 2004-11-26 03:47 -------
Martin, a fresh patch would be something absolutely tasty .. ;-). 

------- Additional Comment #9 From Martin Fuchs 2004-11-26 14:07 -------
Created an attachment (id=789)
updated patch

OK, here is the patch without the already committed parts.
It also removes the testSelectWithLimitClause() test function, as there is a
complete test case for the LIMIT keyword.

------- Additional Comment #10 From Werner Guttmann 2004-11-28 06:01 -------
Patch applied as discussed.

------- Additional Comment #11 From Werner Guttmann 2004-11-28 06:01 -------
And now with setting the state of this bug to 'fixed' .. ;-(.

------- Additional Comment #12 From Martin Fuchs 2004-11-28 06:28 -------
OK, verified and closed.

     Query page      Enter new bug
This is Bugzilla: the Mozilla bug system. For more information about what Bugzilla is and what it can do, see bugzilla.org.
Actions: New | Query | bug # | Reports   New Account | Log In