[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1314?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12559532#action_12559532
]
Tobias Bocanegra commented on JCR-1314:
---------------------------------------
i think the spec is wrong:
in 8.2.10 it says:
If N is currently checked-in then:
1) If V' is a successor (to any degree) of V, then the merge result for N is
update.
2) If V' is a predecessor (to any degree) of V or if V and V' are identical
(i.e., are actually the same version),
then the merge result for N is leave.
3) If V is neither a successor of, predecessor of, nor identical with V',
then the merge result for N is failed.
If N is currently checked-out then:
4) If V' is a predecessor (to any degree) of V or if V and V' are identical
(i.e., are actually the same version),
then the merge result for N is leave.
1) means, if the version you merge against is newer, do an update
2,4) mean, if the version you merge against is older or same, leave it
where as in 8.2.10.1:
a) if v' is a successor of v and n is not checked-in doupdate(n, n').
b) else if v is equal to or a predecessor of v' doleave(n).
a) means, if the version you merge against is newer and checked-out, do update.
which is the same as 1)
b) means, if the version you merge against is newer or same, do leave. which is
not the same as 2,4)
so i think the code is correct. which also makes sense, since you don't want to
update to an older version.
are you sure you did the merge the right way around ? can you provide a test
class ?
> Node incorrectly overridden when performing a merge
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-1314
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1314
> Project: Jackrabbit
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: versioning
> Affects Versions: 1.4, 1.5
> Reporter: Bob Wieler
> Priority: Critical
>
> The implementation of the merge algorithm provided in the JCR specification
> is incorrect and can result in nodes being overridden. This can be
> demonstrated by the following simple steps:
> 1. Create a repository with a nt:file node containing whatever data (n')
> 2. Commit the changes to the node to create the initial version (v')
> 3. Copy the node to a new workspace
> 4. Edit the node in the second workspace (n)
> 5. Commit the changes to the second workspace to create the second version (v)
> 6. Merge the changes from the first workspace into the second workspace
> According to the JCR specification (from 8.2.10.1):
> if v' is a successor of v and n is not checked-in doupdate(n, n').
> else if v is equal to or a predecessor of v' doleave(n).
> else dofail(n, v').
> In the above example, v' is a predecessor of v so the doupdate(n, n') is not
> done. v and v' are also not equal and v is not a predecessor of v' so the
> doleaven(n) is not done. Therefore the dofail(n, v') is what should be called.
> The code in NodeImpl.java is not however doing what is expected. Line 3337 in
> NodeImpl.java (subversion revision 611855) has the following:
> } else if (v.isSame(vp) || v.isMoreRecent(vp)) {
> // If V' is a predecessor (to any degree) of V or if V and V' are
> // identical (i.e., are actually the same version), then the merge
> // result for N is leave. This case can be thought of as the case
> where
> // N' is "older" or the "same age" as N and therefore N should be
> left alone.
> return null;
> } else {
> The doMergeTest method returns null (essentially a doleave(n) in the spec
> algorithm) if v and v' are the same or v' is a predecessor to v - in other
> words if v and v' are the same or v is a _successor_ to v' - which is exactly
> the opposite to what the specification requires (if v is equal to or a
> _predecessor_ of v'). The proper if statement would be to have:
> } else if (v.isSame(vp) || vp.isMoreRecent(v)) {
> Unfortunately, this was causing us to lose data when performing a merge. I
> have updated our version of jackrabbit with the above change and merging now
> works as expected.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
