On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Adam Nelson <a...@varud.com> wrote: > I guess I'll jump in and start triaging. What about a ticket like > this: > > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2284 > > Super-ambiguous. There are dozens of tickets like this that are > frozen in time with no way for anybody to know what's going on. Maybe > there just needs to be a better way to handle this type of ticket? >
First, thanks for taking the time to look with triaging in mind. There may be dozens of tickets like this, but that's a small portion of 900. :-) In any case, yes, very old tickets may be inadvertently fixed or left open, or they may still be accurate, but have bad patches on them. In this specific case, I think the current status is captured in comments 11 through 14 -- that the logic for executing initial SQL breaks in cases where extended SQL syntax (such as pgsql's DECLARE) includes quoted text, etc. You can see the Malcolm objected to the latest patch in 11, and ScottAnderson objected to it in 13. Certainly, the patch needs improvement because it doesn't include any test cases. Possibly, the patch as-is isn't good for the reasons Malcolm listed, but it's hard for me to tell without doing my own testing. I'd mark patch-needs-improvement. If you're feeling more ambitious, I'd suggest coming up with a set of initial SQL files that exercise the assumptions of the loading code. If it's helpful, I like this summary of unit testing points: http://media.pragprog.com/titles/utj/StandaloneSummary.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
