Re: [Modeling-users] model for tests
Status: Abandoned
Brought to you by:
sbigaret
From: John L. <jl...@gm...> - 2004-10-08 11:36:43
|
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:33:07 -0300, John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wrote: > On 08 Oct 2004 10:58:04 +0200, Sebastien Bigaret > > > <sbi...@us...> wrote: > > > > John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wrote: > > > to test one of the patches I'd need a model to have a relation to an > > > entity that has subclasses; although StoreEmployee has such a relation > > > (Holidays <<-> Employee), it doesn't define the toOne side of that > > > relation, and I notice that is used to test exactly that feature. > > > Should I create a new model that has these properties, or do I add a, > > > say, 'Salary' class? > > > > Yes, go for it and modify the model. Maybe a BankAccount class could > > make more sense? Okay, anyway that's a test model, so the semantics is > > not that important :) > > last night I uploaded a patch that called it 'Salary', but I'll rename > it to 'BankAccount' in a while. I forgot to say this: I uploaded a patch because I already had it ready, and although I have time to create these patches, I don't have a lot of time, so sometimes I get impatient and don't wait as much as I should for the answers, and go with what I think best at the time; I can always revisit the decision later, but this way I can move ahead (still got a ways to go). -- John Lenton (jl...@gm...) -- Random fortune: bash: fortune: command not found |