Bug 861127 - Upgrade issue with respect to min/max property attributes
Summary: Upgrade issue with respect to min/max property attributes
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: RHQ Project
Classification: Other
Component: Database
Version: 4.5
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Mike Thompson
QA Contact: Mike Foley
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-09-27 15:16 UTC by Heiko W. Rupp
Modified: 2013-09-04 09:41 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-09-04 09:41:20 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Log from customer upgrade that went awry (1.61 MB, application/octet-stream)
2012-09-27 21:18 UTC, Mike Thompson
no flags Details

Description Heiko W. Rupp 2012-09-27 15:16:32 UTC
Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 2 Mike Thompson 2012-09-27 21:13:32 UTC
master commit id: a751296

This was an issue of adding a new field and not upgrading all of the nulls to 0's if there was previous values in the db. The new fix converts the nulls to zeros and also prevents this from happening on any new values by converting the null to zero on the setters.

The affected fields are:
PropertyDefinitionList.min and PropertyDefinitionList.max


I will move this to modified until verification of the upgrade tests.

Comment 3 Mike Thompson 2012-09-27 21:18:01 UTC
Created attachment 618291 [details]
Log from customer upgrade that went awry

Comment 4 Andreas Veithen 2012-09-28 11:46:42 UTC
+                    <statement desc="Update the NULL to 0 for MAX_ENTRIES">
+                        UPDATE RHQ_CONFIG_PROP_DEF
+                        SET MAX_ENTRIES = 0
+                        WHERE MAX_ENTRIES IS NULL
+                    </statement>

Shouldn't the default value for MAX_ENTRIES be 2147483647 (Integer.MAX_VALUE)?

Comment 5 Mike Thompson 2012-09-28 15:06:50 UTC
You are correct Andreas. Thanks that would have manifested itself later as another bug. Cut and paste errors in the fog of war;)

Comment 6 Mike Thompson 2012-09-30 18:16:49 UTC
Commit to master: aed6157

This latest fix sets an appropriate maximum enables fixes the test for checking  failures of the database upgrade process (which was not enabled for this version RHQ4.5).

Comment 7 Heiko W. Rupp 2013-09-04 09:41:20 UTC
Closing as this has been implemented for a long time.


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