You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-issues@jackrabbit.apache.org by "Jukka Zitting (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/11/22 22:11:35 UTC

[jira] [Commented] (OAK-928) Read access is enforced on NEW items

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-928?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13830314#comment-13830314 ] 

Jukka Zitting commented on OAK-928:
-----------------------------------

See revision 1544674 for an initial fix. The following {{ShadowInvisibleContentTest}} tests still fail:

* {{testShadowInvisibleProperty}} - Probably needs something like {{isReplaced(String propertyName)}}.
* {{testShadowInvisibleProperty2}} - This is tricky, as the content diff won't see any changes. I'd just declare this as an edge case and allow the commit to go through.
* {{testAddNodeCollidingWithInvisibleNode}} - I think this needs to be fixed in the commit hook that checks for write permissions.


> 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: 0.12
>
>
> 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)