[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-928?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13832984#comment-13832984
]
Jukka Zitting commented on OAK-928:
-----------------------------------
Revision takes care of the {{testShadowInvisibleProperty}} test case by adding
per-property {{isNew}}/{{isReplaced}} methods.
Note that the test case originally made the assumption that the lack of read
access also implies lack of write access. However, since the
{{PermissionValidator}} does not enforce this, I adjusted the test case in
revision to highlight the interesting "write-only" behavior. See revision
1545807.
[~anchela], can you take a look at the test case update in r1545807 and check
whether the logic is sound? It seems to me that such "write-only" semantics
would be useful in some cases (for example Unix systems have long used such
setups for various purposes) and that's the way {{PermissionValidator}}
currently works. But the original {{ShadowInvisibleContentTest}} setup (it
expected commit() to fail when read access is denied) implied otherwise so I'm
not sure if that's the intended design.
> Read access is enforced on NEW items
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-928
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-928
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Reporter: angela
> Assignee: Jukka Zitting
> Fix For: 0.13
>
>
> as explained in OAK-923 we may currently run into the situation where a new
> Tree is being added because it does not exist but the resulting child does
> not exist due to restricted access. the same is true for new properties.
> IMHO this breaks backwards compatibility with jackrabbit core.
> i would therefore suggest to
> - extend MutableTree#exists by checking for the tree being new
> line 390:
> {noformat}
> - return nodeBuilder.exists();
> + return nodeBuilder.isNew() || nodeBuilder.exists();
> {noformat}
> - similar behavior for #hasProperty #getProperty, #getProperties and
> #getPropertyCount (no patch yet).
> however, i would like to get a broader consensus on this kind of
> modifications as this
> might have side effects in other places.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
