[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCRVLT-830?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18055423#comment-18055423
]
Joerg Hoh commented on JCRVLT-830:
----------------------------------
I am currently struggling to understand how the problematic package
([^dstrpck-1763695579150-81d5fe51-b017-4dc8-a882-d01da5a3c003-fails.zip]) was
created...
the file {{jcr_root/content/dam/qcom/content-fragments/en/test1/.content.xml}}
looks like this:
{noformat}
<jcr:root xmlns:jcr="http://www.jcp.org/jcr/1.0";
xmlns:sling="http://sling.apache.org/jcr/sling/1.0";
jcr:primaryType="sling:OrderedFolder">
<jcr:content/>
</jcr:root>
{noformat}
it defines a single childnode "jcr:content", while the test case defines the
repository to have another childnode "abc"; and then it's totally clear, that
this childnode will be removed when the policy "REPLACE" is set.
that means that the package installation itself is correct. And it makes me
think that the problem is rather on the package creation side.
> DocViewImporter may delete nodes/properties excluded in the filter.xml
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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)
