[JBoss JIRA] (TEIID-3642) RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8
by Kylin Soong (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3642?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Kylin Soong updated TEIID-3642:
-------------------------------
Environment:
* DV 6.2.0.ER4
* Java 1.8.0_25
> RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TEIID-3642
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3642
> Project: Teiid
> Issue Type: Quality Risk
> Components: OData
> Affects Versions: 8.7.1.6_2, 8.12
> Environment: * DV 6.2.0.ER4
> * Java 1.8.0_25
> Reporter: Kylin Soong
> Assignee: Steven Hawkins
>
> RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8, this cause OData war deploy output Error:
> {code}
> 09:30:51,315 WARN [org.jboss.as.dependency.unsupported] (MSC service thread 1-6) JBAS015868: Deployment "deployment.teiid-odata-8.7.1.6_2-redhat-2.war" is using an unsupported module ("org.joda.time:main") which may be changed or removed in future versions without notice.
> 09:30:51,424 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-6) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,429 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,505 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,513 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,583 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> {code}
> *OData war* depend on *org.joda.time*, *org.joda.time* depend on *RhinoScriptEngineFactory*, due to RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8, so stderr output in console.
> h3. how to reproduce
> Start DV 6.2 with Java 8.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (TEIID-3642) RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8
by RH Bugzilla Integration (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3642?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
RH Bugzilla Integration updated TEIID-3642:
-------------------------------------------
Bugzilla Update: Perform
Bugzilla References: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254399
> RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TEIID-3642
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3642
> Project: Teiid
> Issue Type: Quality Risk
> Components: OData
> Affects Versions: 8.7.1.6_2, 8.12
> Reporter: Kylin Soong
> Assignee: Steven Hawkins
>
> RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8, this cause OData war deploy output Error:
> {code}
> 09:30:51,315 WARN [org.jboss.as.dependency.unsupported] (MSC service thread 1-6) JBAS015868: Deployment "deployment.teiid-odata-8.7.1.6_2-redhat-2.war" is using an unsupported module ("org.joda.time:main") which may be changed or removed in future versions without notice.
> 09:30:51,424 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-6) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,429 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,505 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,513 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> 09:30:51,583 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
> {code}
> *OData war* depend on *org.joda.time*, *org.joda.time* depend on *RhinoScriptEngineFactory*, due to RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8, so stderr output in console.
> h3. how to reproduce
> Start DV 6.2 with Java 8.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (TEIID-3642) RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8
by Kylin Soong (JIRA)
Kylin Soong created TEIID-3642:
----------------------------------
Summary: RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8
Key: TEIID-3642
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3642
Project: Teiid
Issue Type: Quality Risk
Components: OData
Affects Versions: 8.7.1.6_2, 8.12
Reporter: Kylin Soong
Assignee: Steven Hawkins
RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8, this cause OData war deploy output Error:
{code}
09:30:51,315 WARN [org.jboss.as.dependency.unsupported] (MSC service thread 1-6) JBAS015868: Deployment "deployment.teiid-odata-8.7.1.6_2-redhat-2.war" is using an unsupported module ("org.joda.time:main") which may be changed or removed in future versions without notice.
09:30:51,424 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-6) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
09:30:51,429 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
09:30:51,505 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
09:30:51,513 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
09:30:51,583 ERROR [stderr] (MSC service thread 1-1) ScriptEngineManager providers.next(): javax.script.ScriptEngineFactory: Provider com.sun.script.javascript.RhinoScriptEngineFactory not found
{code}
*OData war* depend on *org.joda.time*, *org.joda.time* depend on *RhinoScriptEngineFactory*, due to RhinoScriptEngineFactory be removed in Java 8, so stderr output in console.
h3. how to reproduce
Start DV 6.2 with Java 8.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (TEIID-3641) ANSI 89 joins not translating to 92 syntax correctly
by Steven Hawkins (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3641?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Steven Hawkins updated TEIID-3641:
----------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 8.12
Component/s: JDBC Connector
The SQL is generally correct. The issue is effectively the same as TEIID-3549. The translator just needs to be updated to indicate parens are needed.
> ANSI 89 joins not translating to 92 syntax correctly
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TEIID-3641
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3641
> Project: Teiid
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JDBC Connector
> Affects Versions: 8.11.2
> Environment: Ubuntu Linux Trusty
> Reporter: Don Krapohl
> Assignee: Steven Hawkins
> Fix For: 8.12
>
>
> SQL 89 syntax being translated to SQL 92 has the ON portion of the join in the wrong place when there are multiple tables.
> Example source query:
> select sum(Table3.sales) as c1,
> Table1.customer_id as c2,
> Table1.customer_name as c3,
> Table2.store_id as c4
> from
> dim_customer Table1,
> dim_store Table2,
> fact_sales Table3
> where ( Table1.customer_id = Table3.customer_id
> and Table1.customer_id = 3184
> and Table2.store_id = Table3.store_id
> and Table2.store_id = 9020
> and Table3.customer_id = 3184
> and Table3.store_id = 9020 )
> group by Table1.customer_id, Table1.customer_name, Table2.store_id
> is translated to
> SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
> FROM dim_customer g_0
> JOIN dim_store g_1
> JOIN fact_sales g_2
> ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
> ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
> WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_1.store_id = 9020
> AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_2.store_id = 9020
> GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
>
>
>
>
> Notice the two JOIN... JOIN... followed by two ON... ON... statements. Our database (Impala) doesn't recognize this pattern of join syntax. I haven't tested to determine if it's just Impala that doesn't recognize this syntax (implying a translator bug) or core query parsing. Expected query should be something close to:
>
> SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
> FROM dim_customer g_0
> JOIN fact_sales g_2
> ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
> JOIN dim_store g_1
> ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
> WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_1.store_id = 9020
> AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_2.store_id = 9020
> GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (TEIID-3641) ANSI 89 joins not translating to 92 syntax correctly
by Don Krapohl (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3641?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Don Krapohl updated TEIID-3641:
-------------------------------
Description:
SQL 89 syntax being translated to SQL 92 has the ON portion of the join in the wrong place when there are multiple tables.
Example source query:
select sum(Table3.sales) as c1,
Table1.customer_id as c2,
Table1.customer_name as c3,
Table2.store_id as c4
from
dim_customer Table1,
dim_store Table2,
fact_sales Table3
where ( Table1.customer_id = Table3.customer_id
and Table1.customer_id = 3184
and Table2.store_id = Table3.store_id
and Table2.store_id = 9020
and Table3.customer_id = 3184
and Table3.store_id = 9020 )
group by Table1.customer_id, Table1.customer_name, Table2.store_id
is translated to
SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN dim_store g_1
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
Notice the two JOIN... JOIN... followed by two ON... ON... statements. Our database (Impala) doesn't recognize this pattern of join syntax. I haven't tested to determine if it's just Impala that doesn't recognize this syntax (implying a translator bug) or core query parsing. Expected query should be something close to:
SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
JOIN dim_store g_1
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
was:
SQL 89 syntax being translated to SQL 92 has the ON portion of the join in the wrong place when there are multiple tables.
Example source query:
select sum(Table3.sales) as c1,
Table1.customer_id as c2,
Table1.customer_name as c3,
Table2.store_id as c4
from
dim_customer Table1,
dim_store Table2,
fact_sales Table3
where ( Table1.customer_id = Table3.customer_id
and Table1.customer_id = 3184
and Table2.store_id = Table3.store_id
and Table2.store_id = 9020
and Table3.customer_id = 3184
and Table3.store_id = 9020 )
group by Table1.customer_id, Table1.customer_name, Table2.store_id
is translated to
SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN dim_store g_1
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
Notice the two JOIN... JOIN... followed by two ON... ON... statements. Our database (Impala) doesn't recognize this pattern of join syntax. Query should be:
SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
JOIN dim_store g_1
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
> ANSI 89 joins not translating to 92 syntax correctly
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TEIID-3641
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3641
> Project: Teiid
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 8.11.2
> Environment: Ubuntu Linux Trusty
> Reporter: Don Krapohl
> Assignee: Steven Hawkins
>
> SQL 89 syntax being translated to SQL 92 has the ON portion of the join in the wrong place when there are multiple tables.
> Example source query:
> select sum(Table3.sales) as c1,
> Table1.customer_id as c2,
> Table1.customer_name as c3,
> Table2.store_id as c4
> from
> dim_customer Table1,
> dim_store Table2,
> fact_sales Table3
> where ( Table1.customer_id = Table3.customer_id
> and Table1.customer_id = 3184
> and Table2.store_id = Table3.store_id
> and Table2.store_id = 9020
> and Table3.customer_id = 3184
> and Table3.store_id = 9020 )
> group by Table1.customer_id, Table1.customer_name, Table2.store_id
> is translated to
> SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
> FROM dim_customer g_0
> JOIN dim_store g_1
> JOIN fact_sales g_2
> ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
> ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
> WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_1.store_id = 9020
> AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_2.store_id = 9020
> GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
>
>
>
>
> Notice the two JOIN... JOIN... followed by two ON... ON... statements. Our database (Impala) doesn't recognize this pattern of join syntax. I haven't tested to determine if it's just Impala that doesn't recognize this syntax (implying a translator bug) or core query parsing. Expected query should be something close to:
>
> SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
> FROM dim_customer g_0
> JOIN fact_sales g_2
> ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
> JOIN dim_store g_1
> ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
> WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_1.store_id = 9020
> AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
> AND g_2.store_id = 9020
> GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (TEIID-3641) ANSI 89 joins not translating to 92 syntax correctly
by Don Krapohl (JIRA)
Don Krapohl created TEIID-3641:
----------------------------------
Summary: ANSI 89 joins not translating to 92 syntax correctly
Key: TEIID-3641
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/TEIID-3641
Project: Teiid
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 8.11.2
Environment: Ubuntu Linux Trusty
Reporter: Don Krapohl
Assignee: Steven Hawkins
SQL 89 syntax being translated to SQL 92 has the ON portion of the join in the wrong place when there are multiple tables.
Example source query:
select sum(Table3.sales) as c1,
Table1.customer_id as c2,
Table1.customer_name as c3,
Table2.store_id as c4
from
dim_customer Table1,
dim_store Table2,
fact_sales Table3
where ( Table1.customer_id = Table3.customer_id
and Table1.customer_id = 3184
and Table2.store_id = Table3.store_id
and Table2.store_id = 9020
and Table3.customer_id = 3184
and Table3.store_id = 9020 )
group by Table1.customer_id, Table1.customer_name, Table2.store_id
is translated to
SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN dim_store g_1
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
Notice the two JOIN... JOIN... followed by two ON... ON... statements. Our database (Impala) doesn't recognize this pattern of join syntax. Query should be:
SELECT SUM(g_2.sales), g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
FROM dim_customer g_0
JOIN fact_sales g_2
ON g_0.customer_id = g_2.customer_id
JOIN dim_store g_1
ON g_1.store_id = g_2.store_id
WHERE g_0.customer_id = 3184
AND g_1.store_id = 9020
AND g_2.customer_id = 3184
AND g_2.store_id = 9020
GROUP BY g_0.customer_id, g_0.customer_name, g_1.store_id
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 7 months