-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/72630/#review221094
-----------------------------------------------------------




repository/src/main/java/org/apache/atlas/repository/store/graph/v1/DeleteHandlerV1.java
Lines 159 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/72630/#comment309895>

    Shouldn't removeTagPropagation() be called from inside deleteEdge(edge, 
isForceDelete) implemenation? deleteEdge(edge, isForceDelete) seems to be 
called from multiple places; please review if tag-propagation needs to be 
re-evaluated in these contexts.


- Madhan Neethiraj


On June 29, 2020, 10:28 p.m., Sarath Subramanian wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/72630/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 29, 2020, 10:28 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for atlas, Ashutosh Mestry, Jayendra Parab, Madhan Neethiraj, 
> Nikhil Bonte, Nixon Rodrigues, Pinal Shah, and Sidharth Mishra.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ATLAS-3868
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-3868
> 
> 
> Repository: atlas
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Issue:
> ======
> removing a term-association doesn't remove classifications propagated from 
> the term
> 
> Cause:
> ======
> Regression caused by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-3863
> 
> Solution:
> =========
> Re-evaluate tag propagation only when relationship (edge) is force deleted or 
> for internal types.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> repository/src/main/java/org/apache/atlas/repository/store/graph/v1/DeleteHandlerV1.java
>  717310daf 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72630/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Manually validated - term dissassociation removes all propagated 
> classifications
> 
> Precommit:
> ==========
> https://builds.apache.org/view/A/view/Atlas/job/PreCommit-ATLAS-Build-Test/1996/
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sarath Subramanian
> 
>

Reply via email to