AFTER supported y/n?

Discussion on a SQL Parser for EasyMOD
Locked
User avatar
markus_petrux
Registered User
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Girona, Catalunya (Spain)
Contact:

Re: AFTER supported y/n?

Post by markus_petrux » Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:04 am

:)

Ah, there will probably be a good oportunity to scan all MODs for this kind of issues ...when Olympus...

TerraFrost
Former Team Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:21 am

Re: AFTER supported y/n?

Post by TerraFrost » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:07 am

If someone tries to run an SQL query with a reserved word in it, the query will still be parsed, but an error will still be thrown, none-the-less.

Also, if someone has a query with TYPE=MyISAM, it'll be removed and a warning will be thrown.

Why not do the same thing with AFTERs? Parse the query but throw a warning? It seems like throwing a warning would be just as effective at getting people to write good SQL queries as halting the conversion would.

Alternatively, it seems like a more meaningful error message could be made when AFTER is used. Perhaps the justifications made in this thread could be given when an ALTER TABLE containing an AFTER is used?

User avatar
markus_petrux
Registered User
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Girona, Catalunya (Spain)
Contact:

Re: AFTER supported y/n?

Post by markus_petrux » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:06 am

hmm... I may try to improve the parser so it generates more understandable warnings/errors. That's not easy though. Look for example the errors reported by MySQL itself "You have an error near ...".

However, these things should be detected by MOD authors in the first place, so they may have more knowledge to diagnose why their MODs don't work as expected, etc.

User avatar
-=ET=-
Registered User
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: France

Re: AFTER supported y/n?

Post by -=ET=- » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:12 am

markus_petrux wrote: However, these things should be detected by MOD authors in the first place, so they may have more knowledge to diagnose why their MODs don't work as expected, etc.
I didn't comment your decision before as I fully respect it, but you know I'm quite sure nearly 100% of MOD authors have no clue if an equivalent of AFTER exist for Postgres, Access or MSSQL, and I'm quite sure too nowhere the phpBB group ask not to use AFTER. So nothing will be detected, as they don't care about use AFTER or not.

But now we know, it's not that important (even if personally I would have preferred to have the possibility to use it, even if for an other database the fields are added at the end of the table), so that's fine :)
Eternal newbie

TerraFrost
Former Team Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:21 am

Re: AFTER supported y/n?

Post by TerraFrost » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:04 am

I'm quite sure too nowhere the phpBB group ask not to use AFTER. So :evil: nothing will be detected, as they don't care about use AFTER or not.
Authors who've submitted their MODs for validation (atleast in the past few months) and whose SQL queries use AFTER usually get comments from us ;)

Locked