You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
dbf module should warn the user if they are overwriting any existing files when calling dbf.Table()
What i tried to do was open my dBase III file on memory :
myDatabaseFile = path-to-my-file
testTable = dbf.Table(filename=myDatabaseFile, on_Disk=False).open(dbf.READ_ONLY)
print("Number of records on this file : " + str(testTable.__len__()))
This threw an error :
dbf.DbfError: field list must be specified for memory tables
What i did not know was that this module (probably) does support loading a file into memory, but only throught create_index(), so i foulishly added the field specs to the arguments and restarted the test. And lo and behold :
Number of records on this file : 0
Turns out i nuked an entire 56K records database in an instant, the database file itself was deleted from that folder. Fortunately i had several backups.
Still, i think that the READ_ONLY flag is very deceptive, since the code will delete or overwrite an existing file without warning (depending on how you set on_Disk) if the field_specs are specified. READ_ONLY should also throw an error when specifying field_specs, since the developer will have to populate the database it anyways.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
dbf module should warn the user if they are overwriting any existing files when calling
dbf.Table()
What i tried to do was open my dBase III file on memory :
This threw an error :
What i did not know was that this module (probably) does support loading a file into memory, but only throught
create_index()
, so i foulishly added the field specs to the arguments and restarted the test. And lo and behold :Turns out i nuked an entire 56K records database in an instant, the database file itself was deleted from that folder. Fortunately i had several backups.
Still, i think that the
READ_ONLY
flag is very deceptive, since the code will delete or overwrite an existing file without warning (depending on how you seton_Disk
) if the field_specs are specified.READ_ONLY
should also throw an error when specifying field_specs, since the developer will have to populate the database it anyways.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: