Skip to content

Fix filter & where fragment appended after lock hint #1859

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

Merged

Conversation

fredericDelaporte
Copy link
Member

When a dialect has a read-only lock hint, the filter and/or collection's where fragment is added after the lock hint, which generates an invalid query.

This case happens with SQL Anywhere dialects.

When a dialect has a read-only lock hint, the filter and/or collection's
where fragment is added after the lock hint, which generates an invalid
query.
@fredericDelaporte fredericDelaporte added this to the 5.2 milestone Sep 26, 2018
@fredericDelaporte fredericDelaporte changed the title Fix filter/where fragment appended after lock hint Fix filter & where fragment appended after lock hint Sep 30, 2018
@fredericDelaporte
Copy link
Member Author

As proposed on the development group, and since no continued grounded disagreement has been expressed there since one week after raised concerns being addressed, I intend to merge this PR next week (likely on Wednesday).

(I am issuing this notice on PR issued before starting to apply this handling of merges. I will not do it for new PR.)

@fredericDelaporte fredericDelaporte merged commit 7f3dec8 into nhibernate:master Nov 7, 2018
@fredericDelaporte fredericDelaporte deleted the lockHintCollection branch November 7, 2018 12:34
@hazzik
Copy link
Member

hazzik commented Nov 7, 2018

This is quite unfortunate that you are pursuing that path that you’ve proposed.

@fredericDelaporte
Copy link
Member Author

fredericDelaporte commented Nov 7, 2018

Proper announcements were made. Sound delays for giving feedback were observed, and also announced.
I do not see any message from you about your disagreement in the development group message.
Only Ricardo has expressed a "not convinced stance" there (clearly not an explicit no), without confirming it after my answer to his question.

On the PR themselves, I have not merged the ones on which you have expressed your disagreement about merging them, although on the development group, I was asking for "grounded" disagreement. (Thus my asking on these PR for more explicit reasons than just "still disagree", "unhappy with the change", ...)

I have not seen any explicit opposition to the principle of my proposition anywhere till now.

I would not have done the merge of this PR and of #1855 if you had expressed your stance on the development group, allowing to discuss about it.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants