Re: add ACE containing restrictions throws exception

Done, created OAK-8945 . Marco. On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:06 AM Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Marco > > Yes, that's wired I just had a look at the VersionEditor that throws > this exception: If OPV is IGNORE the exception will not be raised.

Re: custom authentication module

Hi Marco Probably not but I am not aware of another solution from the top of my head. If you find one please let me know. Kind regards Angela From: Marco Piovesana Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:40 AM To: Angela Schreiber Cc: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org

Re: add ACE containing restrictions throws exception

Hi Marco Yes, that's wired I just had a look at the VersionEditor that throws this exception: If OPV is IGNORE the exception will not be raised. And looking at the node type definition the rep:restrictions child node definition doesn't mark it to be IGNORED (even if the parent ACE node

Re: custom authentication module

I tried this and it seems to be working: Configuration currentConfiguration = Configuration.getConfiguration(); Configuration.setConfiguration(new Configuration() { @Override public AppConfigurationEntry[] getAppConfigurationEntry(String applicationName) { if

Re: add ACE containing restrictions throws exception

Hi Angela, thanks for the reply. It feels a bit weird that I have to check-out a node to modify something that doesn't affect the versions, but if is mandatory then ok. Marco. On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:16 AM Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Marco > > I vaguely remember that the verification for

Re: custom authentication module

Hi Marco I never had to do that but I would first try to compose the new configuration from the existing non-oak entries with additional oak-entries. In other words aggregating the result of getConfiguration() with the custom AppConfigurationEntry. Kind regards Angela

Re: add ACE containing restrictions throws exception

Hi Marco I vaguely remember that the verification for the read-only status of a checked-in versionable node does not include the built-in access control content. But I don't recall if that because the specification mandates this or if it's a bug. But the error you get is expected: a