Bug 780448 (SOA-2879) - Refactoring a source model left transformation with mix of old and new model names
Summary: Refactoring a source model left transformation with mix of old and new model ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: SOA-2879
Product: JBoss Data Virtualization 6
Classification: JBoss
Component: Tooling
Version: 6.0.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
urgent
urgent
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Van Halbert
QA Contact:
URL: http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/SOA...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-02-07 14:12 UTC by Paul Nittel
Modified: 2013-05-07 19:20 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 780449 780450 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-11-29 18:50:05 UTC
Type: Bug


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker SOA-2879 0 Blocker Closed Refactoring a source model left transformation with mix of old and new model names 2015-05-12 10:43:48 UTC

Description Paul Nittel 2011-02-07 14:12:17 UTC
project_key: SOA

I created a project containing a textfile model, a view model (EatsText) which depends on the textfile model. I then stacked another model (UsesText) on top and added a concat sequence to make a fullname. Saved, executed and it looked good.

Then, I refactored EatsTest to Employees and got a validation error in UsesText. When I looked at the transformation, here's what I found:

SELECT
                EatsText.et.lastName, Employees.et.firstName, Employees.et.middleName, CONCAT2(EatsText.et.lastName, CONCAT2(', ', CONCAT2(EatsText.et.firstName, CONCAT2(' ', LEFT(EatsText.et.middleName, 1))))) AS FullName, Employees.et.empId, Employees.et.department, Employees.et.annualSalary, Employees.et.title, Employees.et.homePhone, Employees.et.mgrId, Employees.et.street, Employees.et.city, Employees.et.state, Employees.et.ZipCode
        FROM
                EatsText.et

It has both the old and refactored names in it. Oddly, the SELECT contains both--I could see where the SELECT could be right and the FROM wrong.

Comment 1 Van Halbert 2011-02-07 14:12:18 UTC
Link: Added: This issue Cloned from TEIIDDES-817


Comment 2 Van Halbert 2011-02-07 14:12:55 UTC
Security: Added: Public


Comment 3 Paul Nittel 2011-02-07 17:14:08 UTC
FYI, I just test-drove a patch and it worked great!

Comment 5 Len DiMaggio 2011-02-08 18:12:42 UTC
Link: Added: This issue is related to JBDS-1563


Comment 6 Paul Nittel 2011-11-29 18:50:05 UTC
Tested and closed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.