[OPENJPA-2788] addressing issue with anonymous parameters

[michaelwiles]

So a slight adjustment to the hashcode and equals method of the ParameterExpression.

Not 100% sure it's right like this but it works.

I guess I'm not too familiar with the reason for the addition of the hashCode and equals in the first place.

The bottom line is that we must include in these hashCode and equals method the ability to handle the situation where the name is not specified.

[ilgrosso]

@michaelwiles your changes look good to me, and build goes fine.

@struberg / @rmannibucau any objection to go ahead and merge?

[rmannibucau]

Looks rational to me but requires more testing. Typical case I have in mind is duplicate parameter names. Equals impl was intended for container (lists/sets) and paramEquals to handle these cases.
So long story short if we get a complete coverage of ambiguous parameters I'm fine with this change.

[ilgrosso]

@michaelwiles can you address @rmannibucau 's comment? Thanks!

[michaelwiles]

I can flesh out the tests... add some more to validate various cases. What would constitute an ambiguous parameter?

…

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 10:05, Francesco Chicchiriccò < ***@***.***> wrote: @michaelwiles <https://github.com/michaelwiles> can you address @rmannibucau <https://github.com/rmannibucau> 's comment? Thanks! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#42?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAODX5GJZFI2CT35DVHOZHDQPAMFZA5CNFSM4HIHX2FKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEBPGNBQ#issuecomment-543057542>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAODX5H7A7Q6SLQLPFTY27DQPAMFZANCNFSM4HIHX2FA> .

-- see my blog: http://analysis102.blogspot.com http://audiblethoughts.blogspot.com http://outsideofficehours.blogspot.com

[rmannibucau]

From memory twice the same name with same type or not and same value or not - no more sure if both cases were needed, @struberg: do you recall?

[struberg]

Hi! sorry for taking so long! I opted for a slightly less impacting change. Anynomous params are now only treated as the same if they are the same instance.
The whole case is imo rather underspecified in the JPA spec. But I think it's now as good as it gets.