Ticket Hash: | 74542e702edf73c18e6fb32e022afe9a48aec481 | ||
Title: | System.Data.SQLite.SQLiteDataReader.RecordsAffected never returns -1 for SELECT statements | ||
Status: | Closed | Type: | Code_Defect |
Severity: | Important | Priority: | Blocker |
Subsystem: | Data_Reader | Resolution: | Fixed |
Last Modified: | 2015-05-09 17:35:24 | ||
Version Found In: | 1.0.96.0 |
User Comments: | ||||
anonymous added on 2015-04-18 11:07:29:
System.Data.SQLite.SQLiteDataReader.RecordsAffected never returns -1 for SELECT statements
// System.Data.SQLite.SQLiteDataReader public override int RecordsAffected { get { this.CheckDisposed(); if (this._rowsAffected >= 0) { return this._rowsAffected; } return 0; } } mistachkin added on 2015-04-18 17:54:19: Here is the link to the abstract method: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.idatareader.recordsaffected%28v=vs.110%29.aspx mistachkin added on 2015-04-21 16:00:14: This appears to have been the case for quite some time. It could be changed; however, it may represent a risk to backward compatibility. mistachkin added on 2015-04-21 16:56:29: As of the SQLite core library 3.7.4, an argument could be made that using the sqlite3_stmt_readonly() native API in this context is useful. mistachkin added on 2015-04-21 18:21:32: Fixed on trunk via check-in [68239f46ea]. The returned value for the RecordsAffected property may be undefined in some circumstances (i.e. since the value being read is per-connection, not per-statement); however, it should now return -1 for SELECT statements. anonymous added on 2015-05-08 19:47:07: Indeed this does make the command executenonquery deliver a different result (-1) then previous releases (0) |