On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Ben Hood <0x6e6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Karl has suggested, client driver maintainers have opted to > workaround the issue. Indeed, reading up on the issue (and discussing it with folks) there are a number of mitigating factors, most significantly driver workarounds use of TimeUUIDs, which made this issue less common than reversed comparators use cases are. I still consider it a serious issue due to the nature of the regression, but it is fair to say not as serious as my initial reaction. > As for the unit tests, I think this issue was only reproducible when > upgrading a schema to 2.0.x - are you suggesting that there was/is > test coverage for this scenario in the server? > No, I was wondering why such a test, which tests for regression in very basic table access and appears to requires no distribution, does not currently exist. In this particular case, the answer to "why not" involves the idea that one needs to be able to test with a driver in order to expose it, and currently (as I understand it) only distributed tests use a driver. I believe that operators expect there to be a robust representative test schema that can be created on version X.Y.Z and be accessed on version X+1.y.0 which would exercise this core code and increase confidence that tables created in major version X will always be usable without exception in X+1. =Rob
