-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
Added XML support for procedures and functions #91
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
javornikolov
merged 1 commit into
rsim:master
from
jgebal:feature/xml_type_basic_support
Nov 1, 2015
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we sure about the behavior in case of data type 'UNDEFINED' and type name != 'XMLTYPE'? (Before it used to end it else/else clause. Now we trap it here leaving bind values unset).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jgebal, any opinion about that question? My concern is that we're maybe changing the semantics of non-xmltype 'UNDEFINED' (even though I'm not sure what exactly that might be).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Yavor.
I'll look into it this week.
Thanks for spotting that potential behavior change.
Jacek
On 25 Oct 2015 18:33, "Yavor Nikolov" [email protected] wrote:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume that all the existing functionality is covered by unit tests and all existing unit tests are passing.
I did not verify what other types fall under UNDEFINED, but for sure none of them is currently supported by framework.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are some other other
UNDEFINEDtypes (I'm checking that on http://sqlfiddle.com/):It's an edge case indeed, yet I'm wondering about the behavior (how gracefully does it fail) when facing some of these unsupported types.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Regardless of the change introduced the unsupported datatypes (like ANYDATA) will not work.
But you're right that there is a change in the evaluation for UNDEFINED datatypes.
This can be changed so the rest of UNDEFINED fall into the behaviour prior to the change.
I'm not sure what would be the difference since one way or the other the types like ANYDATA are not supported.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK. We may consider examining the unsupported features behaviour a separate topic.