Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Field update / result Updated [CORE903] #1301

Closed
firebird-automations opened this issue Aug 18, 2006 · 28 comments
Closed

Update Field update / result Updated [CORE903] #1301

firebird-automations opened this issue Aug 18, 2006 · 28 comments

Comments

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator

Submitted by: Eduardo (sremulador)

Is duplicated by CORE2177
Is duplicated by CORE2330
Is related to QA351

UPDATE CONTA_AMB_PROCED
SET CEVH=(SELECT (((CEVH+CEVL) * CEQT) * (PNDA / 100)) FROM PROFISSIONAL_CONVENIO WHERE PNCV=:CVDD AND PNPR=(SELECT CPPR FROM CONTA_AMB_PROCED_MESTRE WHERE CPAM=CEAM AND CPCD=CECP)), CEVL=(SELECT (((CEVH+CEVL) * CEQT) * ((100-PNDA) / 100)) FROM PROFISSIONAL_CONVENIO WHERE PNCV=:CVDD AND PNPR=(SELECT CPPR FROM CONTA_AMB_PROCED_MESTRE WHERE CPAM=CEAM AND CPCD=CECP))
WHERE CEAM=(SELECT F2AM FROM FATURA_DETALHE_AMB WHERE F2F1=:FAT AND F2AM=CEAM) AND CEVC=0;

First Set CEVH = ok
Second Set CEVL = BUG

Second CEVL = 1? CEVH(UPDATED) + CEVL

Normal CEVL = (CEVL + CEVL) NO UPDATED

Commits: 99402ef 1739c54

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @asfernandes

Eduardo, the information that you provided is not sufficient to understant.

What is incorrect?

Could you attach a backup?

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: Eduardo (sremulador)

my english is very bad, portuguese vension translate to english

-> Estou tentando fazer um update em uma tabela CONTA_AMB_PROCED aproveitando os valores do campo CEVH e CEVL, com o calculo mensionado acima, o calculo para o CEVH esta gravando corratamente porem o do CEVL esta calculando j? com o primeiro que e do CEVH o que n?o poderia acontecer, pois ainda n?o comitei o registro, estou utilizando esta opera??o em uma SP.

Obrigado

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @asfernandes

The problem (one updated field should continue with old value when evaluating others assignments) is already fixed in the tree but is disabled.

It's scheduled to enable for V3.0 AFAIK.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: Eduardo (sremulador)

only 3.0 :(, trank

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @dyemanov

Many people rely on the existing behaviour, so we cannot change it quickly. This will be addressed in the next major version, probably along with some backward compatibility option.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

assignee: Dmitry Yemanov [ dimitr ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Version: 1.5.3 [ 10028 ]

Version: 1.5.2 [ 10027 ]

Version: 1.5.0 [ 10025 ]

Version: 1.0.3 [ 10006 ]

Version: 1.0.2 [ 10005 ]

Version: 1.0.0 [ 10003 ]

Version: 1.5.1 [ 10026 ]

Version: 1.0.1 [ 10004 ]

Fix Version: 3.0 [ 10048 ]

Version: 2.0 RC3 [ 10040 ] =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Target: 2.5.0 [ 10221 ]

Fix Version: 2.5 Alpha 1 [ 10224 ]

Fix Version: 3.0.0 [ 10048 ] =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

Workflow: jira [ 11163 ] => Firebird [ 15321 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

status: Open [ 1 ] => Open [ 1 ]

Fix Version: 2.5 Beta 1 [ 10251 ]

Fix Version: 2.5 Alpha 1 [ 10224 ] =>

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

status: Open [ 1 ] => In Progress [ 3 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

status: In Progress [ 3 ] => Open [ 1 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

status: Open [ 1 ] => Resolved [ 5 ]

resolution: Fixed [ 1 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Version: 2.1.1 [ 10223 ]

Version: 2.0.4 [ 10211 ]

Version: 2.1.0 [ 10041 ]

Version: 2.0.3 [ 10200 ]

Version: 2.0.2 [ 10130 ]

Version: 2.0.1 [ 10090 ]

Version: 2.0.0 [ 10091 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Link: This issue is duplicated by CORE2177 [ CORE2177 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: Eugenk Konkov (kes)

I have installed new instance of 2.0.3 Firebird
Is there some options on server side to not use this existing behaviour?
I do not need new value of field before it will updated

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @dyemanov

No, there's no workaround, sorry. The proper behavior is implemented in v2.5 only.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @dyemanov

Link: This issue is duplicated by CORE2330 [ CORE2330 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @pcisar

Dmitry, could you please adjust the Fix version according to your plans? If it should appear in 3.0, the current Fix version: 2.5 Beta 1 doesn't look right to me.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @dyemanov

Pavel, it was fixed (or implemented, if you wish) in v2.5, see my last comment here.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @pcisar

Dmitry, I can read :) But Adriano explicitly stated that although it was implemented in 2.5 tree, it's disabled (hence not effective in 2.5 binary) and scheduled to be enabled in 3.0. So, from QA POV we can't create test for this issue against 2.5 and close the ticket until you enable the fix in some future release, and therefore it makes sense to assign Fix for version accordingly to your real plans. In fact, this ticket should be reopened (and sub-task added) as you personally hinted that this issue would need further development (backward compatibility option). Or am I completely wrong?

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @dyemanov

Adriano said that in 2006, there wasn't v2.5 that time :-) In fact, it was implemented (and disabled) during the v2.1 development, and it was enabled and surfaced in v2.5. The corresponding backward compatibility option is OldSetClauseSemantics in firebird.conf.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @pcisar

Ouch, you're right. Now I remember I saw it in release notes :-) I've visited so many old tickets recently during general clean up that my general sense of development chronology is completely messed up and my recall paths are blurry at best. Thanks for clarification.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

Link: This issue is related to QA351 [ QA351 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Commented by: @pcisar

QA test added.

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pcisar

status: Resolved [ 5 ] => Closed [ 6 ]

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pavel-zotov

QA Status: No test

@firebird-automations
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modified by: @pavel-zotov

QA Status: No test => Done successfully

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment