Deep Copy: one-to-one models do not update PKs

[McManning]

Hello,

We've ran into an issue with the behavior of deep copy on models when migrating over from Propel 1 to 2 on some of our older applications - which looks like it could be a bug in the generated code.

Given the following schema:

<table name="Parent">
    <column name="parentId" type="integer"
        required="true" primaryKey="true" autoIncrement="true" />

    <!-- other columns omitted... -->
</table>

<table name="Child">
    <column name="parentId" type="integer"
        required="true" primaryKey="true" />

    <!-- other columns omitted... -->

    <foreign-key foreignTable="Parent" onDelete="CASCADE">
        <reference local="parentId" foreign="parentId"/>
    </foreign-key>
</table>

And the call:

$parent = ParentQuery::create()->yadda yadda
$copy = $parent->copy($deepCopy=true);

I would expect that the Child model be associated with the new parent, but that's not the case. The Child is copied to a new record, but the primary key still references the prior Parent model.

Digging through the generated code a bit, I'm seeing that in Parent::copyInto it does the copy and assignment correctly:

$relObj = $this->getChild();
if ($relObj) {
    $copyObj->setChild($relObj->copy($deepCopy));
}

But - in the Parent::setChild method the below condition will never hold true since the child already has a Parent associated (the copied-from) so Child::setParent is never called to create a back reference:

if ($v !== null && $v->getParent(null, false) === null) {
    $v->setParent($this);
}

In ObjectBuilder.php, I'm seeing the following note that might explain why this behavior changed - but unfortunately the link is dead:

// Note: we're no longer resetting non-autoincrement primary keys to default values
// due to: http://propel.phpdb.org/trac/ticket/618

This wasn't a problem in Propel 1 - and a feature we use pretty heavily for large (~30+ model) relationships that are copied around as part of a versioning framework.

So I'm hoping someone remembers why this behavior may have changed and maybe have some guidance on how this could be resolved?

Thanks! Chase