[5.0.2] Handle concurrency tokens with conversions in the in-memory database #23573
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AndriySvyryd
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2020
|
Approved by Tactics for 5.0.2. Please wait for the branch to open before merging. |
ajcvickers
force-pushed
the
ItsBytesAllTheWayDown1201
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6801dc5 to
e128e71
Compare
ajcvickers
force-pushed
the
ItsBytesAllTheWayDown1201
branch
from
e128e71 to
a87b7a2
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #23527
Also fixes #12436 (MQ issue to add more testing for ulong concurrency tokens)
The fix is to ensure the current value is converted to the model type before comparing.
Description
This is a regression from 3.1 where using a concurrency token with a value converter throws in the in-memory database. This is becoming more common since its much nicer to deal with a
ulongin your code than it is to deal with anbyte[8].Customer Impact
This is regression from 3.1 such that customers using this pattern for testing see their tests fail.
How found
Customer reported on 5.0.0.
Test coverage
We were lacking test coverage for this pattern, as indicated by #12436, which was in my list to do for MQ, but is now done as part of this PR.
Regression?
Yes, from 3.1.
Risk
Very low; trivial code change and quirked, plus a lot more testing added here.