Roundup Tracker - Issues


Author rouilj
Recipients ThomasAH, ber, ezio.melotti, rouilj, schlatterbeck
Date 2013-01-09.17:28:06
Message-id <>
In-reply-to Your message of "Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:44:57 GMT." <> <>
In message <>
<201301091744.54722.bern>, Bernhard Reiter writes:
>Bernhard Reiter added the comment:
>Am Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2013 16:00:26 schrieb John Rouillard:
>> But the auditor *does not*
>> call a get on the database. It just uses the info passed to it in the
>> db.tx_Source string.
>Which I believe should be okay for doing decisions in principle, 

I agree. I think the original goal to allow the auditor to make a
decision based on the method by which an update arrived is working
fine. Now that we know why the journal anomolies are occurring I think
I am ok with saying it's not a bug in the code I wrote.

>there shouldn't be a necessity to explicitely "read" all the values
>in order to lock them when basing decisions on them.

If the auditor needs to know the current value from the database
(e.g. in moving between statuses in a workflow) then it can do the
read of the existing status and get the lock.

>> Did I understand you correctly when you indicated that doing a
>> cl.get(nodeid, 'tx_Source') in the auditor would cause parallel update
>> transactions 

If this get "solves" the journaling problem, we could always do the
get in the demo auditor for the side effect of fixing the journal
Date User Action Args
2013-01-09 17:28:07rouiljsetrecipients: + rouilj, schlatterbeck, ber, ThomasAH, ezio.melotti
2013-01-09 17:28:07rouiljlinkissue2550731 messages
2013-01-09 17:28:06rouiljcreate