OK, old news. And in 3.14.3 as well (but you expected that, I believe). I
can rework the function definition.
I see I didn't fill in my "pom[1]" footnote originally. Is line 6 of the
pom.xml correct? I think it's a little early to reference
"${org.jooq.groupId}"
--- a/pom.xml
+++ b/pom.xml
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
<modelVerions>4.0.0</modelVersion>
- ${org.jooq.groupId}
+ org.jooq
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 1:07:35 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for your message. Have you verified this behaviour with jOOQ
> 3.14.4? If it still persists, yes please check in whatever is needed to
> reproduce the problem. You can check in the 90k dump file, or if that
> contains sensitive information, try to remove things until you find a
> minimal set to help reproduce the problem (the 90k are probably not
> necessary).
>
> Before you do that, please check if this isn't just this issue here:
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/4055
>
> Thanks,
> Lukas
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 2:59 AM Rob Sargent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> java 11
>> jooq 3.13.6
>> postgres 12
>>
>> Setters and getters are being create twice for returned columns of one
>> postgres function. The first of a pair of setters calls "set(N, value)"
>> and the second calls set(N+1, value). Similarly for the getters.
>>
>> I have forked the mcve, cloned, tweaked the pom[1] and mvn clean verify
>> generates the same duplication I'm seeing in my working environment.
>> But of course this is dependent on my database and the function in
>> question. Do I check-in a dump file (90K)?
>>
>> Here's what I know:
>> There are many public functions but it appears this is the only one which
>> causes this behaviour.
>>
>> This is in fact an overloaded function (same name, different args, same
>> return structure).
>> In ".../public_/tables" directory, there is only one definition of the
>> function generated and the "Call this table-value function" uses the
>> shorter list of args (text,text args v. text,text,double,int). This
>> version of the function simply adds the two values (defaults) and calls the
>> four-arg version. Each column definition (TableField<MyRecord>, Class) is
>> duplicated and this is where we go afoul of the compiler.
>>
>> The constructors in the generated Record (".../public_/tables/records")
>> has each of the three returned column duplicated.
>>
>> Would it suffice to check-in just the definition of the functions (sql)?
>> And the generated, non-compiling java files?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "jOOQ User Group" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jooq-user/6601a73b-3a14-4239-b098-a0f6a54fc381n%40googlegroups.com
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jooq-user/6601a73b-3a14-4239-b098-a0f6a54fc381n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ
User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jooq-user/56236ffc-48fb-4ed4-ac66-009fc803e3d0n%40googlegroups.com.
