[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-830?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18049827#comment-18049827
]
Joerg Hoh commented on JCRVLT-830:
----------------------------------
[~kwin] another question on that aspect: If this behavior is purely driven by
the details of the aggregation, would it be possible that filevault does not
create this probelmatic aggregation at all? Of course that would not fix the
problem entirely (I can still create a file structure manually and can convert
that into a package using the maven plugin), but at least it would prevent the
problem to show up, when on both sides filevault is in charge of the entire
process.
> "incorrect aggregatoin" can lead to the deletion of content
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JCRVLT-830
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-830
> Project: Jackrabbit FileVault
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.1.4
> Reporter: Joerg Hoh
> Priority: Major
> Attachments:
> dstrpck-1763695579150-81d5fe51-b017-4dc8-a882-d01da5a3c003-fails.zip,
> dstrpck-1763695579150-81d5fe51-b017-4dc8-a882-d01da5a3c003-fixed.zip
>
>
> We have a situation, where content needed to be updated using filevault, but
> it actually deleted content. We were able to reproduce this and found it to
> be caused by the structure of the content package.
> Context: We have identified this issue with AEM CS in the context of
> replication, which uses filevault to both create and import the content
> package.
> How to reproduce:
> * Create a content structure {{/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1}}
> and create an additional sibling node {{"abc"}}. Use the nodetype
> "sling:Folder" for these nodes.
> * Install the content package
> [^dstrpck-1763695579150-81d5fe51-b017-4dc8-a882-d01da5a3c003-fails.zip]
> (mode=REPLACE, which is the default with the AEM package manager, and also
> used in our usecase). You will get this output from filevault:
> {noformat}
> Importing content...
> - /
> - /content
> - /content/dam
> - /content/dam/qcom
> - /content/dam/qcom/content-fragments
> D /content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1
> A /content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1
> A /content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/jcr:content
> saving approx 3 nodes...
> {noformat}
> * Now when checking you will find that the node "abc" was deleted as well.
> But given the overall structure of the content package this is not what we
> have expected. It was our expectation that the node "abc" still exists.
> We dug deeper and experimented a bit. When you redo the same steps with the
> package
> [^dstrpck-1763695579150-81d5fe51-b017-4dc8-a882-d01da5a3c003-fixed.zip] the
> node abc still exists after the import.
> The only difference between these content package is in the "fails" case the
> structure in the content package looks like this:
> {noformat}
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/.content.xml
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/_jcr_content/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/_jcr_content/.content.xml
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/.content.xml
> {noformat}
> while in the "fixed" case it looks like this:
> {noformat}
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/.content.xml
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/_jcr_content/
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/_jcr_content/.content.xml
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/.content.xml
> jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/.content.xml
> {noformat}
> we split {{jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/.content.xml}} into
> the 2 files {{jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/.content.xml}} and
> {{jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/.content.xml}}, all other
> files are identical.
> Now the questions:
> * Is this expected behaviour? I am not sure, in my opinion the aggregation of
> the node definitions into different files should not play a role here.
> * The "failed" file was created by filevault directly, and I would like to
> understand how filevault does the decision to either consolidate multiple
> nodes into a single .content.xml file or to split them, so each node gets its
> own .content.xml.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
