Ignorance prevention

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/09/16]

I've had two cases now where I've changed the primary key with unhappy
consequences--one directly and one indirectly (in a loop of all fields).
Oddly, although the indirect change was changing the field to the same
value, the field was completely missing from the object index after I
did an update. Simply not changing the field fixed this behavior. Is
this anticipated behavior from the index or is something else going on
in my code that I'm not seeing?

Obviously, I'd like to save myself from doing this a third time by
adding an exception or at least a warning message to my logs when such a
change occurs.

From the docs, it appears that this kind of warning may be desirable
(see Caveats-- "I should really protect against this."). Is this code
going to be difficult to add? I'm willing to take a stab at it if Tony
or someone familiar with the codebase could give me any warnings or
advice.


Thanks,
William

        -- 
        Knowmad Services Inc.
http://www.knowmad.com