Hi Michelle,We should look at the cases for pmf being null. The tearDown method relies on the ability to get access to a PM in order to do cleanup. It doesn't make sense to go through the expensive process of getting a PMF if there is no tearDown work to do.
So perhaps we need to check first for any instances or classes to be removed before we get a PMF in tearDown...
And we should probably disallow pmf == null in cases where there is work to do.
Craig On May 31, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
Alternatively, getPMF() could check to see if pmf is closed or null and return a new pmf in either case.-- Michelle Michael Watzek wrote:Hi,there are 5 tests (AfterCloseGetPMThrowsException, AfterCloseSetMethodsThrowException, Close, CloseFailsIfTransactionActive, CloseWithoutPermissionThrowsSecurityException) that call "getPMF()" and "pmf.close()" in their "testXXX" methods , but they do not nullify field "pmf". All of those tests fail in "localTearDown": "localTearDown" calls "getPMF()" which returns field "pmf" if it is not null. For this reason, "getPMF()" returnes a closed PMF in those tests.The proposal for a fix is to add a check before "localTearDown" is called:if (pmf!=null && pmf.isClosed()) pmf = null; Regards, Michael
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
