Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue 380 notation primary key #490

Open
wants to merge 23 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

diogosq
Copy link

@diogosq diogosq commented Jan 6, 2016

Using this notation you can set another variable to serve as primary key .

_Limitations:_ a primaira key must be a long.

_Problems:_ Methods that do not use the parameter object will not work correctly. Are they:

   delete() 
   public Long getId() 
   public void setId(Long id)

@mention-bot
Copy link

By analyzing the blame information on this pull request, we identified @whoshuu, @jivimberg and @Shyish to be potential reviewers

@sibelius
Copy link
Contributor

sibelius commented Jan 7, 2016

@diogosq thanks

I think you should also modify createTableSQL in SchemaGenerator

could you also add some tests to keep the coverage in the same percent or improve it

We also should think in how to fix these methods that you described, and maybe also to make possible to have a primary key using a different type, we could discuss this on gitter

@diogosq
Copy link
Author

diogosq commented Jan 7, 2016

@sibeliusseraphini Hi

Sorry, I really forgot the SchemaGenerator. I will modify today and add
some tests.

In my solution, I don't use anymore the methods delete() and
getId()/setId().
See you in gitter.
Att.

2016-01-06 22:48 GMT-02:00 Sibelius Seraphini [email protected]:

@diogosq https://github.com/diogosq thanks

I think you should also modify createTableSQL in SchemaGenerator

could you also add some tests to keep the coverage in the same percent or
improve it

We also should think in how to fix these methods that you described, and
maybe also to make possible to have a primary key using a different type,
we could discuss this on gitter


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#490 (comment).

Diogo Saraiva de Queiroz [link]http://www.google.com/profiles/diogosq[/link]

"Just because I cannot see it doesn't mean I can't believe it!"
"Só porque eu não posso ver, não significa que eu não posso acreditar!"

Jack Skellington

@JonatanSalas
Copy link
Collaborator

@diogosq could you solve the conflicts?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants