| 2017-09-01 20:37:06 |
Jason Boyer |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2017-09-01 21:18:34 |
Jason Boyer |
tags |
|
pullrequest |
|
| 2017-09-01 21:19:02 |
Jason Boyer |
description |
Eg 2.12.6
The definition for the action.all_circulation_slim in upgrade script 1051 has potential issues when run against older databases. When using a UNION it's just assumed that the fields on either side of the union are in the same order, but over the years as upgrades are applied field order drifts and can't be relied on. It's fine to use the assumed order in union constructs in new databases but upgrade scripts should specify each field in the expected order. An update for this upgrade script is on its way. |
Eg 2.12.5 (upgrading to .6)
The definition for the action.all_circulation_slim in upgrade script 1051 has potential issues when run against older databases. When using a UNION it's just assumed that the fields on either side of the union are in the same order, but over the years as upgrades are applied field order drifts and can't be relied on. It's fine to use the assumed order in union constructs in new databases but upgrade scripts should specify each field in the expected order. An update for this upgrade script is on its way. |
|
| 2017-09-05 19:55:26 |
Mike Rylander |
evergreen: status |
New |
Fix Committed |
|
| 2017-09-05 19:55:29 |
Mike Rylander |
evergreen: milestone |
2.12.6 |
3.0-beta |
|
| 2017-09-06 00:07:01 |
Jason Boyer |
description |
Eg 2.12.5 (upgrading to .6)
The definition for the action.all_circulation_slim in upgrade script 1051 has potential issues when run against older databases. When using a UNION it's just assumed that the fields on either side of the union are in the same order, but over the years as upgrades are applied field order drifts and can't be relied on. It's fine to use the assumed order in union constructs in new databases but upgrade scripts should specify each field in the expected order. An update for this upgrade script is on its way. |
Eg 2.12.X to 3.0
The definition for the action.all_circulation_slim in upgrade script 1051 has potential issues when run against older databases. When using a UNION it's just assumed that the fields on either side of the union are in the same order, but over the years as upgrades are applied field order drifts and can't be relied on. It's fine to use the assumed order in union constructs in new databases but upgrade scripts should specify each field in the expected order. An update for this upgrade script is on its way. |
|
| 2017-09-07 00:50:43 |
Evergreen Bug Maintenance |
evergreen: status |
Fix Committed |
Fix Released |
|
