Bug 995509 - rollback() instead of commit()
Summary: rollback() instead of commit()
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6
Classification: JBoss
Component: Documentation
Version: 6.1.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: GA
: EAP 6.1.1
Assignee: Russell Dickenson
QA Contact: Russell Dickenson
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-08-09 14:53 UTC by Ondrej Chaloupka
Modified: 2014-08-14 15:17 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
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
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


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