On 6.6.12 17:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-06-06 17:48, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6.6.12 14:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
At first glance, this seems to be another case of where the test needs
to refresh() before saving, because in Oak, the session doesn't
necessarily have the latest changes.
This is necessary in any case and should be fixed in the test case.
The test is IMHO fine, what we need is Session.save() to do an
implicit refresh() (or an equivalent rebase operation) before
committing transient changes. In fact IIUC that's already the case
here.
Session.save() eventually results in a rebase operation in the
Microkernel. But we should add a Root.rebase before that in order to be
able to better handle potential conflicts.
This is caused by the way refresh(true) is currently implemented. It
does
basically a rebase operation: it re-applies all changes of the current
session to the current trunk. Now when a node does not exist any more in
trunk and there are changes to the sub tree rooted at that node, these
changes are silently discarded.
Perhaps we should replace such cases with conflict markers that
prevent the transient space from being resolved (for example with a
commit hook that prevents such markers from being present in commit).
Only if the session then explicitly removes or re-adds the modified
subtree, thus clearing the conflict marker, can the save succeed.
That sounds like a good idea.
Yes this sounds interesting and general enough to be also able to cope
with other conflict situations. I will try to come up with something
along these lines.
Should we open a ticket describing the problem? That would allow me to
annotate the test exclusions in the pom.xml with pointers t related work
items...
Yes, I'd do that. Could you also include a link to this discussion?
Michael
Best regards, Julian
