[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-10760?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Angela Schreiber updated SLING-10760:
-------------------------------------
Description:
[~kpauls], while trying to find more edge cases that could cause SLING-10754, i
noticed that not only sibling nodes but also access control content (like e.g.
_rep:policy_ nodes) contained in a _.content.xml_ get installed by Jackrabbit
Filevault even if those nodes are not covered by the corresponding
{{WorkspaceFilter}}.
It also seems that these package 'entries' are not spotted by the converter and
thus the dedicated {{EntryHandler}} implementations that are intended to
analyze and convert special content like e.g. access control (but probably not
limited to that) are not triggered.
In other words: content hidden in _.content.xml_ will not be properly converted
but will be installed even if not covered by _filter.xml_ associated with the
content package. I don't know if that actually intended behavior of Jackrabbit
FileVault (the documentation clearly stating that everything should be covered
by filter rules [0], section 'Usage for Import/Installation'), but if it is
correct it might in the worse case require the converter to parse all
_.content.xml_ files and delegate to the proper handler implementations.
[~kwin], I would appreciate your input on the FileVault related question of
this ticket. In particular: is it correct and intended that subnodes defined in
_.content.xml_ get installed even if not covered by any filter rule?
[0] https://jackrabbit.apache.org/filevault/filter.html
was:
[~kpauls], while trying to find more edge cases that could fall cause
SLING-10754, i noticed that not only sibling nodes but also access control
content (like e.g. _rep:policy_ nodes) contained in a _.content.xml_ get
installed by Jackrabbit Filevault even if those nodes are not covered by the
corresponding {{WorkspaceFilter}}.
It also seems that these package 'entries' are not spotted by the converter and
thus the dedicated {{EntryHandler}} implementations that are intended to
analyze and convert special content like e.g. access control (but probably not
limited to that) are not triggered.
In other words: content hidden in _.content.xml_ will not be properly converted
but will be installed even if not covered by _filter.xml_ associated with the
content package. I don't know if that actually intended behavior of Jackrabbit
FileVault (the documentation clearly stating that everything should be covered
by filter rules [0], section 'Usage for Import/Installation'), but if it is
correct it might in the worse case require the converter to parse all
_.content.xml_ files and delegate to the proper handler implementations.
[~kwin], I would appreciate your input on the FileVault related question of
this ticket. In particular: is it correct and intended that subnodes defined in
_.content.xml_ get installed even if not covered by any filter rule?
[0] https://jackrabbit.apache.org/filevault/filter.html
> Converter ignores access control content in .content.xml files
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SLING-10760
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-10760
> Project: Sling
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Content-Package to Feature Model Converter
> Reporter: Angela Schreiber
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: subtree_in_contentxml_policy.png,
> subtree_in_contentxml_sibling.png
>
>
> [~kpauls], while trying to find more edge cases that could cause SLING-10754,
> i noticed that not only sibling nodes but also access control content (like
> e.g. _rep:policy_ nodes) contained in a _.content.xml_ get installed by
> Jackrabbit Filevault even if those nodes are not covered by the corresponding
> {{WorkspaceFilter}}.
> It also seems that these package 'entries' are not spotted by the converter
> and thus the dedicated {{EntryHandler}} implementations that are intended to
> analyze and convert special content like e.g. access control (but probably
> not limited to that) are not triggered.
> In other words: content hidden in _.content.xml_ will not be properly
> converted but will be installed even if not covered by _filter.xml_
> associated with the content package. I don't know if that actually intended
> behavior of Jackrabbit FileVault (the documentation clearly stating that
> everything should be covered by filter rules [0], section 'Usage for
> Import/Installation'), but if it is correct it might in the worse case
> require the converter to parse all _.content.xml_ files and delegate to the
> proper handler implementations.
> [~kwin], I would appreciate your input on the FileVault related question of
> this ticket. In particular: is it correct and intended that subnodes defined
> in _.content.xml_ get installed even if not covered by any filter rule?
> [0] https://jackrabbit.apache.org/filevault/filter.html
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
