Hi Peter,
Sorry for the hassle caused by Maven and the unit tests :-)
What do you mean by "kind of successful" ?
>>
>
> So this fails
>
> jooq-parent$ mvn package
>
Interesting
> But
> jooq-parent$ mvn package -amd
>
> Builds, but fails on the tests with
>
> Failed tests:
> testInsertQuery2(org.jooq.test.BasicTest): null expected:<...(10, 'ABC',
> date '19[70-01-0]1')> but was:<...(10, 'ABC', date '19[69-12-3]1')>
> testMergeQuery(org.jooq.test.BasicTest): null expected:<..."."DATE1" =
> date '19[70-01-01' when not matched then insert ("ID1", "NAME1", "DATE1")
> values (1, 'name', date '1970-01-0]1')> but was:<..."."DATE1" = date
> '19[69-12-31' when not matched then insert ("ID1", "NAME1", "DATE1") values
> (1, 'name', date '1969-12-3]1')>
> testToString(org.jooq.test.ConvertTest): expected:<19[70-01-0]1> but
> was:<19[69-12-3]1>
>
Hmm, I guess some tests weren't written timezone-safely. Looks like these
tests fail as you're not in CET / CEST. I should fix that
https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/2271
> Now that wouldn't produce jars, so i did some other things, eventually it
> pretended to compile but I got that runtime error instead. I think the jars
> were improperly built somehow, but maven had become confused and stopped
> complaining.
>
> Once I did this
>
> mvn install -Dmaven.test.skip=true -amd
>
> (or mvn package -Dmaven.test.skip=true -amd)
>
> This seemed to make a lot more real progress, and I copied over the jars,
> now things work
>
Great!
> - might want to add a couple of lines in the README that says something
> like
>
> cd jooq-parent directory and run
>
> $ mvn package -Dmaven.test.skip=true -amd
>
> For us simple folk who just stick to ant scripts. :-)
>
Yes, you're right. I'm still struggling with this Maven myself, so I hear
you. I'll add a section to the manual explaining how to build jOOQ:
https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/2270
> Once I got the jars working I ran the PGobject test and things work now!!
> So thank you again.
>
Good to know! I'll merge this fix downstream, then, to 2.6.4 and 2.7, for
those users that aren't ready to migrate to jOOQ 3.0 yet.
Please tell me if you run into any other issues / corner-cases. As you said
yourself, jOOQ shouldn't "touch" any bind values that are passed in as
Object/OTHER. That was the original intention, but of course, there is a
lot of potential for bugs in this area, as there are few integration tests
covering these "unexpected" types.
Cheers
Lukas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ
User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
