TPH sibling metadata bug #29025
Merged
TPH sibling metadata bug #29025
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
roji
force-pushed
the
TphSiblingMetadataBug
branch
from
e42899d
to
4919080
Compare
|
Uhh, I can't approve this because it's my own PR, though the fix is actually Andriy's 🤣 @ajcvickers (or @AndriySvyryd) can you please approve? |
AndriySvyryd
approved these changes
Sep 9, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@AndriySvyryd, I think this small code change reproduces a bug in the relational model generation (this PR is based on top of #28908, so ignore the 1st commit).
Basically, when creating the sproc mappings (RelationalModel.CreateStoredProcedureMapping) for a TPH child, we filter out parameters which aren't mapped to the current child entity type. We'll add these to the StoredStoreProcedure later, but they'll be appended to the ended, meaning that the parameter longer is incorrect.
This is reproduced here by moving Child1Property to the end of the sproc parameter list, after some properties which belong to Child2. Inspecting the final metadata definition shows that in the StoredStoreProcedure, Child1Property comes before the Child2 properties instead of after (the conceptual StoreProcedure is fine).
(feel free to push fixes directly to this PR)