On 5 December 2012 10:41, Ate Douma <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/05/2012 03:39 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: > >> I haven't reviewed the release, but I agree that we should push forward >> with the known issue. I would also like to see if this is an issue in >> earlier releases. >> >> Well, I checked two earlier versions (0.15 & 0.16). I cannot reproduce > the error with those, but because I cannot delete a user at all, regardless > having a shared page or not. > When I try to delete any user I get an exception (see below). > Maybe that is related to H2 database only, but worrisome anyway. > At least with 0.18 we now *can* delete users :) >
I'm sure we were able to delete a new user in earlier versions because that's one of the steps in the integration tests. This new user doesn't have widgets on his page and doesn't have a shared page, which may be the cause of the issue. > > Anyway, I agree not making RAVE-859 a release blocker, but we need spend > more time and focus on these basic model management issues. > > I'll vote +1 on the release now, but we should mentioned RAVE-859 as known > issue. > > Ate > > FYI the exception stacktrace when trying to delete a user with 0.15/0.16: > > INFO : org.apache.rave.portal.**service.impl.**DefaultUserService - about > to delete userId: 2 > INFO : org.apache.rave.portal.**service.impl.**DefaultUserService - > Deleted user [2,john.doe] - numPages: 2, numPersonPages:0, > numWidgetComments: 0, numWidgetRatings: 0, numWidgetsOwned: > 0,numCategoriesTouched:0 > Dec 5, 2012 9:55:27 AM org.apache.catalina.core.**StandardWrapperValve > invoke > SEVERE: Servlet.service() for servlet dispatcher threw exception > org.apache.rave.persistence.**impl.TranslatedH2Exception: Unknown > Database Error > at org.apache.rave.persistence.**jpa.impl.H2OpenJpaDialect.** > translateExceptionIfPossible(**H2OpenJpaDialect.java:60) > at org.springframework.orm.jpa.**JpaTransactionManager.**doCommit( > **JpaTransactionManager.java:**516) > at org.springframework.**transaction.support.** > AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.processCommit(** > AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.java:754) > at org.springframework.**transaction.support.** > AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.commit(** > AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.java:723) > at org.springframework.**transaction.interceptor.** > TransactionAspectSupport.**commitTransactionAfterReturnin** > g(TransactionAspectSupport.**java:394) > at org.springframework.**transaction.interceptor.** > TransactionInterceptor.invoke(**TransactionInterceptor.java:**120) > at org.springframework.aop.**framework.** > ReflectiveMethodInvocation.**proceed(**ReflectiveMethodInvocation.** > java:172) > at org.springframework.aop.**framework.JdkDynamicAopProxy.** > invoke(JdkDynamicAopProxy.**java:202) > at $Proxy132.deleteUser(Unknown Source) > at org.apache.rave.portal.web.**controller.admin.**UserController. > **deleteUserDetail(**UserController.java:161) > > > > >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Geer >> [[email protected]<mailto:**[email protected]<[email protected]> >> >] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 08:52 PM Eastern Standard Time >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ate Douma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine. >>> The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking >>> (RAVE-838). >>> Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend >>> associations >>> now works. >>> >>> However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a >>> user who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared >>> pages >>> which aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive... >>> >>> I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already >>> canceled the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly >>> qualifies. I don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an >>> (almost) production environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade >>> to this 0.18 release candidate until this bug is fixed. >>> Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't >>> had >>> time to check) in which case it doesn't really matter. >>> >>> WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight >>> this in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker? >>> >>> >> I vote that we proceed with the release and put a note not to upgrade if >> you use this feature. That way people who don't use the feature get an >> upgrade and the people who do use it are not any worse off as long as they >> don't upgrade. >> >> Two questions on RAVE-859 >> - Do you know if it's a logic error (we are purposely deleting the page) >> or is it an unintended JPA delete based on referential integrity? >> - How will your work on the HMVC impact pages and page sharing? Will it >> fix this issue by replacing it with a different approach? >> >> If we can get concurrence on RAVE-859 then here is my +1 >> >> Chris >> >> >>> I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now. >>> >>> Ate >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote: >>> >>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate. >>>> >>>> For more information on the release process, checkout - >>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/****release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/**release.html> >>>> <http://www.**apache.org/dev/release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Some of the things to check before voting are: >>>> - can you run the demo binaries >>>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag >>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE >>>> files >>>> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable >>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
