Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Incorrect changes from 4.9 to 5.1 #2162

Discussion options

Hello, i have recently updated from 4.9 to 5.1. I have a lot of tests which failed after the migration to the newest version. I have successfully migrated the Visitors according to the Migration Guide.

The first problem is with the dataType property:
4.9: According to me this is the correct representation, where The varchar length is stored in the argumentsStringList.
Screenshot 2025年02月10日 at 15 27 27

5.1: Incorrect representation where the length is part of the dataType
Screenshot 2025年02月10日 at 14 41 43

Another problem that i have discovered is with the UNSIGNED column specification:
4.9: Which I think is also the correct one: the unsigned column spec is inside the columnSpecs list
Screenshot 2025年02月10日 at 15 29 58

5.1: Incorrect, where unsigned is part of the dataType
Screenshot 2025年02月10日 at 15 23 23

These are the ones that I have discovered for now, probably there are more.
Were these changes intentional or were changed by mistake?

You must be logged in to vote

Greetings,

to be very honest: I don't care much about DDL statements and just try to get them parsed somehow (especially when there are parser errors).
They have just too many RDBMS specific parts, far away from any standard to be useful in a RDBMS agnostic parser. And the Create/Alter Statement parts of the parser are grown over the time and not very well designed from begin.

So your helping hand will be very much welcome when you are interested in this particular topic.

Replies: 2 comments

Comment options

Greetings,

to be very honest: I don't care much about DDL statements and just try to get them parsed somehow (especially when there are parser errors).
They have just too many RDBMS specific parts, far away from any standard to be useful in a RDBMS agnostic parser. And the Create/Alter Statement parts of the parser are grown over the time and not very well designed from begin.

So your helping hand will be very much welcome when you are interested in this particular topic.

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Answer selected by dani-petrov
Comment options

Btw, I believe that regarding the unsigned int, 5.1 is more correct than the previous one.

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Category
Q&A
Labels
None yet

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /