Re: Regression from 4.2-RC2 to 4.2-RC3

2022-12-14 Thread Lon Varscsak
Thanks guys...yeah, I rolled back and am going again. Let me know if I can help test a fix. -Lon On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 5:18 AM Nikita Timofeev wrote: > Hi Lon. > > I think this new fix is incompatible with meaningful PKs, where two > ObjectIds could really represent different operations even

Re: Regression from 4.2-RC2 to 4.2-RC3

2022-12-14 Thread Andrus Adamchik
> where two ObjectIds could really represent different operations even if their > snapshots are equal. Ah, this is what it is. I was wondering how a seemingly logical and clean fix could've broken anything :) > On Dec 14, 2022, at 1:17 PM, Nikita Timofeev > wrote: > > Hi Lon. > > I think

Re: Regression from 4.2-RC2 to 4.2-RC3

2022-12-14 Thread Nikita Timofeev
Hi Lon. I think this new fix is incompatible with meaningful PKs, where two ObjectIds could really represent different operations even if their snapshots are equal. And IIRC that is exactly your case. Will think if there's a good way to fix this. In the meantime you could just safely rollback to 4

Re: Regression from 4.2-RC2 to 4.2-RC3

2022-12-13 Thread Andrus Adamchik
Correct, we fixed an issue with two identical join table records being committed in certain cases with inheritance. I'll defer to Nikita to comment on the effects on your case. Andrus > On Dec 13, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Lon Varscsak wrote: > > My guess is the new logic in > DefaultDataDomainFlu

Re: Regression from 4.2-RC2 to 4.2-RC3

2022-12-13 Thread Lon Varscsak
My guess is the new logic in DefaultDataDomainFlushAction.mergeSameObjectIds with OpIdFactory has a flaw. It's a little above my paygrade to figure out why. 🤣 On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:44 PM Lon Varscsak wrote: > I have a pretty serious regression between these versions. I'm not 100% > sure wh