Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:29:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Unico Hommes (Updated) (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <499696833.2430.1333970959172.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <2006485076.675.1333877898544.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Updated] (JCR-3289) Remove operation right after move
 operation causes missing child inconsistency
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-3289?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Unico Hommes updated JCR-3289:
------------------------------

    Attachment: MoveRemoveTest.patch
    
> 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
>            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