|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Michelle Caisse added a comment - 14/Nov/06 09:30 PM
I agree that we should simple delete the call to "primaryObj.addChild(secondaryObj)". It doesn't appear to be necessary.
If you skip the call to "primaryObj.addChild(secondaryObj)", you have to make primaryObj dirty in some other way, or you are not testing what the test case claims to be testing: new, clean, and dirty instance callbacks.
Oops. What I meant was to skip the call to ternaryObj.addChild(secondaryObj) in the following code snippet:
InstanceCallbackClass ternaryObj = new InstanceCallbackClass("ternaryObj", stillLaterDate, 3, 3.3, (short)-30, '3', null); pm.makePersistent(ternaryObj); ternaryObj.addChild(secondaryObj); // SKIP THIS LINE!! ternaryObj.addChild(primaryObj); t.commit(); Fixed with revision: 475051
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||