[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-830?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18050639#comment-18050639
]
Joerg Hoh commented on JCRVLT-830:
----------------------------------
[~kwin] thanks! That seems to be a larger change, which also has impact on
performance (as already mentioned).
But this entire situation seems to be an edge case, which could (easily?) be
avoided if the package structure is a bit different (using the "fixed"
structure as in the description); in my understanding the semantic is
identical, and we could avoid hitting this case entirely. What's your opinion
on that?
> "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)
