[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2413?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14355136#comment-14355136
]
angela commented on OAK-2413:
-----------------------------
[~mduerig], you are right... it actually assumes that there are changes. is
there an easy way to identify if there are changes? and how would the test look
like that illustrates the issue (such that i could verify that a potential fix
actually addresses the problem)?
> Clarify Editor.childNodeChanged()
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-2413
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2413
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: Marcel Reutegger
> Assignee: Michael Dürig
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.2
>
>
> The current contract for {{Editor.childNodeChanged()}} does not specify if
> this method may also be called when the child node did not actually change.
> The method {{NodeStateDiff.childNodeChanged()}} explicitly states that there
> may be such calls. Looking at the implementation connecting the two classes,
> {{EditorDiff.childNodeChange()}} simply calls the editor without checking
> whether the child node did in fact change.
> I think we either have to change the {{EditorDiff}} or update the contract
> for the Editor and adjust implementations. E.g. right now, PrivilegeValidator
> (implements Editor), assumes a call to {{childNodeChange()}} indeed means the
> child node changed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
