[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-557?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17408698#comment-17408698
]
Dominik Süß commented on JCRVLT-557:
------------------------------------
Failing scenario covered in
https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-filevault/pull/164 - as indicated this is
a boiled down scenario of a more complex package with includes and excludes
containing the minimum to provoke the same fail scenario. With the real packge
I could observe on 3.4.0 that the substructures would be created as
nt:unstructured making the structures valid while the package definition itself
doesn't enforce a valid structure in itself - yet people were relying on this
implicit detection to work as it did which makes this a breaking behavioral
change.
> Breaking change in behavior for implict nodetype calculation
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCRVLT-557
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-557
> Project: Jackrabbit FileVault
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: vlt
> Reporter: Dominik Süß
> Priority: Major
>
> During extensive validation of backward compatiblity of droping in head
> (3.5.1-SNAPSHOT) over 3.4.0 led to detection of a breaking behavioral change.
> The simplified case looks like this:
> * a node is already present as nt:unstructured
> * a package is being installed with an the filter root not having a
> .content.xml
> * the child node of this node would be nt:unstructured
> Experienced outcome in 3.4.0: all 3 nodes would be of nt:unstructured
> Behavior in 3.5.1-SNAPSHOT: ConstraintViolationExceptionas no matching
> NodeTypeDefinition is found for the child node (indicating that the parent
> wasn't created as nt:unstrructureed)
> The original case is slightly more complex where the substructure is deeper
> with some excludes and an "implicit" node (not covered by the filter due to
> the exclude would fail to create with the same ConstraintViolationException.
> My current assumption is that solving the provided testcase (will create IT
> for the PR) would also solve the more complex scenario - if necessary I can
> add a secondary test case closer to the real-world failure.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
