Chetan Mehrotra created OAK-4431:
------------------------------------

             Summary: Index path property should be considered optional for 
copy on read logic
                 Key: OAK-4431
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4431
             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: lucene
            Reporter: Chetan Mehrotra
            Assignee: Chetan Mehrotra
             Fix For: 1.6


As part of changes done for OAK-4347 logic assumes that indexPath is always non 
null. This works fine for fresh setup where the indexPath would have been set 
by the initial indexing. However for upgraded setup this assumption would break 
as it might happen that index does not get updated with new approach and before 
that a read is performed.

Currently with updated code on upgraded setup following exception is seen 

{noformat}
Caused by: javax.security.auth.login.LoginException: 
java.lang.NullPointerException: Index path property [:indexPath] not found
        at 
com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkNotNull(Preconditions.java:236)
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.IndexDefinition.getIndexPathFromConfig(IndexDefinition.java:664)
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.IndexCopier.getSharedWorkingSet(IndexCopier.java:242)
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.IndexCopier.wrapForRead(IndexCopier.java:140)
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.IndexNode.open(IndexNode.java:53)
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.IndexTracker.findIndexNode(IndexTracker.java:179)
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.IndexTracker.acquireIndexNode(IndexTracker.java:154)
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.index.lucene.LucenePropertyIndex.getPlans(LucenePropertyIndex.java:250)
{noformat}

For this specific flow the indexPath can be passed in and not looked up from 
IndexDefinition



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to