This is my first such case in 5-6 years of using the SA. Usually the
problem was with my code. This could also be the case now, but it
escapes me where I made a mistake.
Thank you for your time. I will consider this closed for now and move
on using a workaround of explicitly populating campaign_id. I guess I
will try 0.6 or even 0.7 in the next few months.
Thanks,
Tvrtko
P.S. for the curious, my relations go like this:
from elixir import Entity, Field, ...
class Campaign(Entity):
id = Field(Integer, Sequence('cc_campaign_seq'),
colname='campaign_id', primary_key=True)
qitems = OneToMany('QItem')
class QItem(Entity):
id = Field(Integer, Sequence('cc_qitem_seq'), colname='qitem_id',
primary_key=True)
campaign = ManyToOne('Campaign', colname='campaign_id',
required=True)
On Jan 15, 5:32 pm, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Tvrtko wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 4:35 pm, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote:
> >> So, you have A->B, an exception occurs, you do the rollback, then you're
> >> somehow trying to continue on within the web request ? The code
> >> examples here are out of context snippets and I don't see any exception
> >> handling happening so they don't really tell me much. When the flush
> >> fails, the internal state is completely expired. Campaign, if pending
> >> when the transaction started, now transient again, qitem is also
> >> transient. Previous flushes within that transaction have no effect on
> >> this. Campaign and qitem would retain their relationship to each other,
> >> campaign_id would probably remain present, but if you were to re-add the
> >> two, it would be overwritten on the next flush.
>
> > You are right. I presented the issues in a confusing manner because I
> > was not exactly sure what was happening in the first place.
>
> > I am *not* continuing with request after exception. I was reraising
> > exception after a debug print. Unfortunately that debug print has lead
> > me in the wrong direction of thinking that objects were expunged
> > before the flush. That is not the case.
>
> > What actually happens is that save mechanism sometimes gets underlying
> > ID from related object end sometimes it doesn't. Note that campaign
> > has ID, and that campaign is associated with qitem and still,
> > qitem.contact_id is not allways set during a save/flush.
>
> > Debug print from inside `mapper._save_obj()`:
>
> > Good case:
>
> > qitem state dict = {'campaign': <Campaign 233, u'Test'>,
> > 'campaign_id': 233, ...}
>
> > And for the bad case:
>
> > qitem state dict = {'campaign': <Campaign 234, u'Test'>,
> > 'campaign_id': None, ...}
>
> OK, then I need a full reproducing test case which shows how that result
> occurs. Its not a known issue off the top of my head. Also, please note
> that I am in no way suggesting you upgrade your application to 0.6, however,
> if you test your development code with 0.6 and the problem goes away, that
> would indicate something specific to 0.5 might be the cause. I would
> suggest that it may be related to how your relationships are set up, such
> that a dependency between QItem and Campaign is not correctly established,
> leading the ORM to sometimes handle one or the other first.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
