jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bart van der Schans (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (JCR-3289) Remove operation right after move operation causes missing child inconsistency
Date Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:02:36 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3289?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13256406#comment-13256406
] 

Bart van der Schans commented on JCR-3289:
------------------------------------------

Merged in 2.4 branch in revision 1327436.
                
> Remove operation right after move operation causes missing child inconsistency
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JCR-3289
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3289
>             Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.2.11, 2.4
>            Reporter: Unico Hommes
>            Assignee: Bart van der Schans
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 2.2.12, 2.4.2
>
>         Attachments: ItemSaveOperation.patch, MoveRemoveTest.patch
>
>
> The scenario is as follows:
> 1. Session s1 does a move operation on node /folder1/node to destination /folder2/node
> 2. Session s2 does a remove operation on node /folder1/node
> 3. Session s1 is saved
> 4. Session s2 is saved
> A consistency check shows that /folder2 has a child node entry for inexistent child node
node.
> The problem is that step 4. should fail whereas it doesn't.
> This is caused by the fact that the ItemSaveOperation.removeTransientItems puts the overlayed
state of the transient state in the changelog instead of the transient state itself. But the
 overlayed state has the updated modcount of the previous move operation. Therefore when the
shared item state manager persists the changelog it doesn't detect that the remove was done
on a stale item and so the update can succeed.
> Attached is a patch containing a testcase that reproduces the inconsistency with this
scenario.
> Another patch is for the ItemSaveOperation class which fixes the issue.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message