Implement new JDO 2 query tests cases concerning parameters.

• Key: JDO-160
• Type: New Feature
• Status: Resolved
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Major
• Assignee: Michael Watzek
• Reporter: Michael Watzek
• Component/s: tck2

Description

 We need 4 new test classes, one for each of the following assertions:

- A14.6.3-2: Parameters must all be declared explicitly via declareParameters or all be declared implicitly in the filter.
- A14.6.3-3: Parameters implicitly declared (in the result, filter, grouping, ordering, or range) are identified by prepending a ":" to the parameter everywhere it appears. All parameter types can be determined by one of the following techniques.
- A14.6.13-3: If implicit parameters are used, their order of appearance in the query determines their order for binding to positional parameters for execution.

Details can be found on Wiki page http://wiki.apache.org/jdo/QueryTests#Parameters

Comments

 This patch implements the assertions above.

[Michael Bouschen]

Some comments about JDO-160.patch:

OrderOfParameters:
- I propose to add a second test query that switches the order of param1 and param2, but keeps the order of the actula parameter values. The second query should return an empty result list.

MixedParameters:
- How about adding another negative test query having an explicit and an implict parameter? It declares one parameter "String param1". The filter uses this parameter plus an implicit parameter: "firstname == param1 & lastname == :param2". This mix of explict and implict declared parameters is not valid.

ImplicitParameters:
- I propose to add a test query using an implict parameter in the having clause.

[Michael Watzek]

The second patch contains the comments above.

[Michael Bouschen]

Two comments:
- Class OrderOfParameters defines queries using explicilty declared parameters . I propose to change this to implicit parameters, because the assertion only covers implicit parameters.
- The grouping query in class ImplicitParameters is not valid, it misses a result clause. I propose to add the following result clause: "department.name, COUNT(this)" and change the grouping clause to "department.name HAVING COUNT(this) >= :min".

[Michael Watzek]

I incorporated the comments above into the second patch and checked in the changes.