[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13892916#comment-13892916
]
Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-2316:
---------------------------------------------
I don't think the changes to the NamespacesIT test are correct in the prior
commit.
Abbreviations:
TableNotFoundException is TNFE; NamespaceNotFoundException is NSNFE;
AccumuloException is AE; "<=" is "caused by"
In one case, where we were checking to ensure those methods threw a (TNFE <=
NSNFE), to ensure users knew why the table wasn't found, you changed it to
allow either a (TNFE) *or* (any exception <= NSNFE).
In other place, we were explicitly checking older APIs that could only throw
AE, to ensure that they threw precisely an (AE <= TNFE <= NSNFE). Those now
permit (TNFE) *or* any (AE <= TNFE), even if it was not caused by a NSFE.
Also, the entire block of code checking to ensure renames for unqualified table
names as the second param work was simply removed. That, in spite of the
javadoc explicitly describing this being expected behavior. It seems to me that
if we document we can do it, we should keep the test that ensures it works.
> Table based Security operations should throw Table not found exceptions over
> namespace not found
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-2316
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2316
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: client
> Reporter: John Vines
> Assignee: John Vines
> Fix For: 1.6.0
>
>
> A majority of the table api around security operations will do table checks
> which, if the table is not found, will throw a Namespace not found exceptions
> if the namespace also does not exist. This isn't really intuitive and should
> be changed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
