Re: [Bigdata-developers] interaction between #699 and #684

[Mike P. <mi...@sy...>]

1.2 maintenance branch.  I am pretty sure there are no commits in there that need to be migrated.


From: Bryan Thompson <br...@sy...<mailto:br...@sy...>>
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:50 AM
To: Mike Personick <mi...@sy...<mailto:mi...@sy...>>, Jeremy J Carroll <jj...@sy...<mailto:jj...@sy...>>
Cc: "Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>" <Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>>
Subject: Re: [Bigdata-developers] interaction between #699 and #684

Ok. Is your working version the 1.2.x maintenance branch or the READ_CACHE branch (HA)?

B

From: Mike Personick <mi...@sy...<mailto:mi...@sy...>>
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Bryan Thompson <br...@sy...<mailto:br...@sy...>>, Jeremy Carroll <jj...@sy...<mailto:jj...@sy...>>
Cc: "Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>" <Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>>
Subject: Re: [Bigdata-developers] interaction between #699 and #684

I have the changes applied to my local version but not committed as I was working on some other property path issues last week.  Not ready to commit right now.


From: Bryan Thompson <br...@sy...<mailto:br...@sy...>>
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:56 AM
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jj...@sy...<mailto:jj...@sy...>>, Mike Personick <mi...@sy...<mailto:mi...@sy...>>
Cc: "Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>" <Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>>
Subject: Re: [Bigdata-developers] interaction between #699 and #684

Morning all. What is the status on this patch and the related issues around UNION optimizations as they pertain to property paths?  Also, are the changes applied in the 1.2.x maintenance branch and do they need to be migrated to the READ_CACHE branch?
Bryan

From: Jeremy Carroll <jj...@sy...<mailto:jj...@sy...>>
Date: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:27 PM
To: Mike Personick <mi...@sy...<mailto:mi...@sy...>>
Cc: "Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>" <Big...@li...<mailto:Big...@li...>>
Subject: Re: [Bigdata-developers] interaction between #699 and #684


Patch is now attached to the trace item at
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/bigdata/attachment/ticket/684/trac684B.patch
 $ patch -p1 -i /tmp/trac684B.patch


Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.



On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy J Carroll <jj...@sy...<mailto:jj...@sy...>> wrote:

This is now done.
Sorry it took me a while to get my infrastructure in place.

The tests are in

bigdata-rdf/src/test/com/bigdata/rdf/sparql/ast/optimizers/TestASTStaticJoinOptimizer.java

and are named

xtest_union_trac684_A
test_union_trac684_B
xtest_union_trac684_C


The first and last currently fail, and I renamed them as not to suggest that things had got worse.
To run the tests you will need to rename them back again

(I am used to just adding an @Ignore annotation … for this usage - what is the preference in this project?)

I am now working on producing a new patch file of my solution to these failing tests. I am sorry we had miscommunicated, since I was waiting for feedback from you on a previous patch …. :(




Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.



On Jul 12, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Mike Personick <mi...@sy...<mailto:mi...@sy...>> wrote:

Can you check in a test case for
it so that I can run it?