I am trying to port to adql-2.1, and I am having some problems with the JDBCTranslator.
I think I pinpointed it to here: is this the expected behaviour, or should it be normalize(name)?
My use case is the following:
I create the table with new DefaultDBTable(null, null, 'TAP_SCHEMA', 'TAP_SCHEMA', 'tables', 'tables')
And what happens is that the constructor invokes the super constructor, which sets dbName to 'tables', and then dbName ends up in adqlCatalogName, and the table is translated to tables.TAP_SCHEMA.tables instead of TAP_SCHEMA.tables.
It seems to work with var dbTable = new DefaultDBTable(null, schemaName, name);, but why all these different constructors?
https://github.com/gmantele/vollt/blob/71a08860df4231ffc330a927c8a0bdd2f9228030/ADQLLib/src/adql/db/DefaultDBTable.java#L222
I am trying to port to adql-2.1, and I am having some problems with the JDBCTranslator. I think I pinpointed it to here: is this the expected behaviour, or should it be
normalize(name)
?My use case is the following: I create the table with
new DefaultDBTable(null, null, 'TAP_SCHEMA', 'TAP_SCHEMA', 'tables', 'tables')
And what happens is that the constructor invokes the super constructor, which sets dbName to 'tables', and then dbName ends up in adqlCatalogName, and the table is translated to tables.TAP_SCHEMA.tables instead of TAP_SCHEMA.tables.It seems to work with
var dbTable = new DefaultDBTable(null, schemaName, name);
, but why all these different constructors?