Re: [SQLObject] Exception ... ignored (was: should Transaction.commit makeObsolete?)

[Daishi H. <da...@eg...>]

Hi,

I'm not sure this is entirely related, but I'm seeing:

Exception pysqlite2.dbapi2.ProgrammingError: 'Cannot operate on a=20
closed database.' in <bound method Transaction.__del__ of=20
<sqlobject.dbconnection.Transaction object at 0xb6f9ca2c>> ignored

on the attached test code, which goes away if I
add a _makeObsolete call in Transaction.commit().
(I'm using the current pysqlite2 and sqlobject).

I'm wondering if I'm just not doing the right thing
in the test code, or if I should ignore the message,
or if there's something actually wrong elsewhere.

In particular, is there a better way to obtain the
transaction then accessing ._connection as I do?

On a separate note, I see that DBConnection has
a queryOne() method; is there a corresponding
"get_one" method at the SQLObject level that
can replace the iter(select()).next() hack in query()
below?

tia,d

---

import sqlobject

URI =3D 'sqlite:/:memory:'
N =3D 10

class Test(sqlobject.SQLObject):
     class sqlmeta:
         cacheValues =3D False
     _connection =3D sqlobject.connectionForURI(URI)
     foo =3D sqlobject.StringCol()

def create():
     Test.dropTable(ifExists=3DTrue)
     Test.createTable()

def load():
     transaction =3D Test._connection.transaction()
     for i in xrange(N):
         Test(foo=3Dstr(i), connection=3Dtransaction)
     transaction.commit()

def query():
     for i in xrange(N):
         x =3D iter(Test.selectBy(foo=3Dstr(i))).next()
         #print x

def main():
     #Test._connection.debug =3D True
     create()
     load()
     query()

if __name__ =3D=3D '__main__':
     main()



On Jun 21, 2005, at 6:23 AM, Kevin Dangoor wrote:

> In dbconnection.py, the error messages seem to imply that after you've
> committed (or rolled back) a transaction, you need to either get a new
> transaction object or call begin().  Looking at the code, though,
> rollback calls _makeObsolete, whereas commit does not.
>
> This is causing some interesting behavior in my test code, because I
> made some database updates that I hadn't committed and they were
> getting rolled back when the previous, already committed transaction
> was garbage collected.
>
> I can certainly add an explicit rollback in my own code, but I wanted
> to see if there really should be a makeObsolete call in there.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
> from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
> informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
> speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id=16492&op=3Dclick
> _______________________________________________
> sqlobject-discuss mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
>