Skip to main content

Home/ Google AppEngine/ Group items tagged bug

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Esfand S

test unit doesn't work more - Google App Engine for Java | Google Groups - 0 views

  •  If you're following the how-to article on unit testing ( http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/howto/unittesting.html) you'll need to update your TestEnvironment class to look like this one: http://code.google.com/p/datanucleus-appengine/source/browse/branches... (lines 34 - 66) We're working on getting the docs updated right now.
Esfand S

Works fine on App Engine locally but get (session-related?) error after deploying to pr... - 0 views

  • the necessary changes to appengine-web.xml to get Sitebricks to run in development mode:         <sessions-enabled>true</sessions-enabled>         <system-properties>                 <property name="java.util.logging.config.file" value="WEB-INF/logging.properties"/>                 <property name="mvel2.disable.jit" value="true"/>         </system-properties>
  • the necessary changes to appengine-web.xml to get Sitebricks to run in development mode:         <sessions-enabled>true</sessions-enabled>         <system-properties>                 <property name="java.util.logging.config.file" value="WEB-INF/logging.properties"/>                 <property name="mvel2.disable.jit" value="true"/>         </system-properties>
  • We had a GaeFlashCache built specifically for appengine. Try doing: bind(FlashCache.class).to(GaeFlashCache.class).in(Singleton.class);
Esfand S

Works fine on App Engine locally but get (session-related?) error after deploying to pr... - 0 views

  • the necessary changes to appengine-web.xml to get Sitebricks to run in development mode:         <sessions-enabled>true</sessions-enabled>         <system-properties>                 <property name="java.util.logging.config.file" value="WEB-INF/logging.properties"/>                 <property name="mvel2.disable.jit" value="true"/>         </system-properties>
Esfand S

Appointments and Line Items - Stack Overflow - 0 views

  • I propose two possiblities: Duplicate Line_Item. Line_Item appointment_key name price finished ... A Line_Item should have a finished state, when the item was finished or not by the employee. If an employee hadn't finished all line items, mark them as unfinished, create a new appointment and copy all items that were unfinished. You can index on the appointment_key field on all Line_Items, which is a Good Thing. However, the duplicated data may be a problem. Dynamic fields for Line_Item: Line_Item duplicate_key appointment_key name price finished ... Create a new field, duplicate_key, for Line_Item which points to another Line_Item or to null (reserve this key!). Null means that the Line_Item is original, any other value means that this Line_Item is a duplicate of the Line_Item the field points to. All fields of Line_Item marked as a duplicate inherit the fields of the original Line_Item, except the appointment_key: so it will take less storage. Also this solution should have appointment_key indexed, to speed up lookup times. This requires one additional query per duplicated Line_Item, which may be a problem. Now, it's a clear choice: either better speed or better storage. I would go for the first, as it reduces complexity of your model, and storage is never a problem with modern systems. Less complexity generally means less bugs and less development/testing costs, which justifies the cost of the storage requirement.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20 items per page