Bug 995509

Summary:	rollback() instead of commit()
Product:	[JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6	Reporter:	Ondrej Chaloupka <ochaloup>
Component:	Documentation	Assignee:	Russell Dickenson <rdickens>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Russell Dickenson <rdickens>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.1.0	CC:	myarboro, ochaloup
Target Milestone:	GA
Target Release:	EAP 6.1.1
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:	Build: CSProcessor Builder Version 1.11 Build Name: 11864, Development Guide-6.1-4 Build Date: 19-07-2013 12:11:48 Topic ID: 4306-433108 [Specified]
Last Closed:	2013-09-16 20:22:02 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Ondrej Chaloupka 2013-08-09 14:53:51 UTC

Title: Roll Back a Transaction
The example is under rollback chapter. Please, use rollback() method in the example.
And please consider fixing indentation of comment (// Commit the transaction) and three dots above it. This concerns the example in commit transaction chapter as well.

Comment 1 Misty Stanley-Jones 2013-08-26 02:21:13 UTC

The example does have rollback() in the try{} clause. I don't think you would ever roll back the transaction on purpose, would you? 

I have fixed the indentation, which resulted from a tabs/spaces issue. The fix is in revision 501553 but is not yet available for review.

Comment 2 Ondrej Chaloupka 2013-08-26 05:40:03 UTC

You're absolutely right. Sorry. I was just quickly checking the text and I was misguided by the fact that the examples in commit and rollback chapters are the same.

Comment 3 Misty Stanley-Jones 2013-08-27 00:57:33 UTC

I also made the change to topic 4305 (Commit a transaction) to fix the alignment error in the code sample. The main issue of this bug is now moot, as per the last comment, and I do not think alignment issues need a full QE cycle, so moving this straight to VERIFIED.