On 03/09/2011 04:27 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:42:18PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> Package: libreoffice-base >> Version: 1:3.3.1-1 >> Severity: grave >> Justification: causes non-serious data loss > > Come on. You see this in the *first* entry you do in the table. Immediately. > And you get a report with *THAT* record, you have to fix it then anyways. > > I'd more argue that this is important.
Feel free to re-adjust the priority, i meant no offense. This seemed like it met the "non-serious data loss" bar to me, but i'm happy to go with your decisions. > If I had a database I would care about I'd not use Base. And Especially not > hsqldb. > > Actually I am seriously surprised that you do :) I don't use Base for my own databases, but i support a pretty wide range of users. Not all of them are comfortable with a command line. I'd like to be able to offer them free tools that they feel comfortable using. > So it's hsqldb... If you had a database you cared about you probably > would use MySQL or PostgreSQL via the connectors ;-) Perhaps this information could be in a big red warning flag someplace in the UI instead of being the default choice? I know it's a bad idea to believe hype without testing it but... http://www.libreoffice.org/features/base/ says: >>> Base comes configured with the full HSQL relational database engine. >>> It's an ideal solution for uncomplicated needs, and for people >>> requiring an easy-to-understand, simple-to-use system: the data is >>> stored right inside the Base file, and you also get native support for >>> dBase flat files. I have a technically-adventurous (but not particularly db-knowledgeable) user who now has (due to some other bug i have yet to track down) a corrupted .odb file which i assume is using hsqldb (they started working on the database without my knowledge, so i had no opportunity to advise them to use something else). In the course of trying to replicate their problem, i ran across this particular bug. >> 8) on "No primary key: Should a primary key be created now" prompt, >> choose "Yes" (i observe that it creates a column named "ID" in >> addition to the "id" column that already exists. maybe this is >> the root of the problem?) > > Well, there I question your actions. You have an "id" and then still leave > LibO to do your primary key? Why not cancel and fix to make id primary key? > It shouldn't break this way, admittedly, but I would have expected pepople > to fix it if they *added an 'id' themselves*. I agree, it was a silly/lazy thing to do. But people do silly/lazy things. A tool that fails in an obscure way when the user does something silly/lazy can be dangerous thing to put in front of most computer users, particularly if we want them to think of this as a functional office suite in the future. > Anyway, confirmed. OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 seems to give a > "NumberFormatException" > in the same scenario. > > This seems to be related to the folllowing I found at > http://rlogiacco.blogspot.com/2009/03/hsqldb-no-such-table-exception.html: Thanks for the debugging! --dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
