Philipp Salvisberg

I really love the `customer := customer.withName(...).withAddress(...).withAccount(...).withBalance(...).build();` example by @mathewbutler . I can imagine to implement something manually using object types. Maybe we could start with an advanced demo app...

This is not a framework bug. It's caused by the SQL Developer extension. The consumer thread must be started before the producer thread to avoid this behavior.

I'm re-opening this issue based on the discussion in JetBrain's [DBE-9671](https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/DBE-9671#focus=streamItem-27-3985132.0-0) and in Slack. In the meantime I consider this a utPLSQL framework bug based on the following code in...

Issue #920 was reduced to address the security issue. Support of quoted identifiers is required to fix this issue. Case-sensitivity is just one issue, special characters like spaces need the...

@al-hexagon please not that the current develop branch looks quite different. Maybe you can use it. What would help us is a test case that shows what's wrong. Thanks.

> which development do you mean? https://github.com/utPLSQL/utPLSQL/tree/develop/source - it includes a log of changes since the release of 3.1.10. > Anyhow - i'll try to create a sample. Perfect. Thanks.

## Setup Oracle Database 19c (19.10). utPLSQL version: current develop branch I amended you test case a little. I installed this in my test environment: ```sql declare e_tab_not_found exception; pragma...

If I run the complete suite then the code coverage looks like this:  This looks good. And yes I ran it against 19c (19.10). I also created an additional...

>"I coded a unit test which should cover the entrire buisness logic. The dbms_output show me this is all covered .... But the coverage tools just says 50%..." Well, if...

So you are using utPLSQL v3.1.11.3469-develop and Oracle Database 19.7. The only difference I see in our environment is the Database version. As mentioned before, I cannot reproduce this issue...