rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:46:43 GMT
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:

> On 12/05/2012 03:39 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
>> I haven't reviewed the release, but I agree that we should push forward
>> with the known issue. I would also like to see if this is an issue in
>> earlier releases.
>>
>>  Well, I checked two earlier versions (0.15 & 0.16). I cannot reproduce
> the error with those, but because I cannot delete a user at all, regardless
> having a shared page or not.
> When I try to delete any user I get an exception (see below).
> Maybe that is related to H2 database only, but worrisome anyway.
> At least with 0.18 we now *can* delete users :)
>
> Anyway, I agree not making RAVE-859 a release blocker, but we need spend
> more time and focus on these basic model management issues.
>
> I'll vote +1 on the release now, but we should mentioned RAVE-859 as known
> issue.
>
> Ate
>
> FYI the exception stacktrace when trying to delete a user with 0.15/0.16:
>

This could have been because of RAVE-845 which was fixed in 0.18 (and which
ultimately caused 0.17 to be stopped). It only affects users with
associations, which would be John Doe. I know deleting some users works in
the older versions because the integration tests pass.

>
> INFO : org.apache.rave.portal.**service.impl.**DefaultUserService - about
> to delete userId: 2
> INFO : org.apache.rave.portal.**service.impl.**DefaultUserService -
> Deleted user [2,john.doe] - numPages: 2, numPersonPages:0,
> numWidgetComments: 0, numWidgetRatings: 0, numWidgetsOwned:
> 0,numCategoriesTouched:0
> Dec 5, 2012 9:55:27 AM org.apache.catalina.core.**StandardWrapperValve
> invoke
> SEVERE: Servlet.service() for servlet dispatcher threw exception
> org.apache.rave.persistence.**impl.TranslatedH2Exception: Unknown
> Database Error
>         at org.apache.rave.persistence.**jpa.impl.H2OpenJpaDialect.**
> translateExceptionIfPossible(**H2OpenJpaDialect.java:60)
>         at org.springframework.orm.jpa.**JpaTransactionManager.**doCommit(
> **JpaTransactionManager.java:**516)
>         at org.springframework.**transaction.support.**
> AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.processCommit(**
> AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.java:754)
>         at org.springframework.**transaction.support.**
> AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.commit(**
> AbstractPlatformTransactionMan**ager.java:723)
>         at org.springframework.**transaction.interceptor.**
> TransactionAspectSupport.**commitTransactionAfterReturnin**
> g(TransactionAspectSupport.**java:394)
>         at org.springframework.**transaction.interceptor.**
> TransactionInterceptor.invoke(**TransactionInterceptor.java:**120)
>         at org.springframework.aop.**framework.**
> ReflectiveMethodInvocation.**proceed(**ReflectiveMethodInvocation.**
> java:172)
>         at org.springframework.aop.**framework.JdkDynamicAopProxy.**
> invoke(JdkDynamicAopProxy.**java:202)
>         at $Proxy132.deleteUser(Unknown Source)
>         at org.apache.rave.portal.web.**controller.admin.**UserController.
> **deleteUserDetail(**UserController.java:161)
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Geer [chris@cxtsoftware.com<mailto:**chris@cxtsoftware.com<chris@cxtsoftware.com>
>> >]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 08:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> To: dev@rave.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.18 Release Candidate
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>>
>>  I tested the 0.18 release and all-in-all it works pretty fine.
>>> The performance on H2 still is an issue of course but not blocking
>>> (RAVE-838).
>>> Also, RAVE-845 seems to be fixed, deleting a user with friend
>>> associations
>>> now works.
>>>
>>> However I discovered a new, and IMO worse error RAVE-859: when I delete a
>>> user who has pages shared with, that action also deletes those shared
>>> pages
>>> which aren't 'owned' by this user. Rather destructive...
>>>
>>> I'm not sure we should qualify this as a release blocker, as we already
>>> canceled the previous release candidate, but *functionally* it certainly
>>> qualifies. I don't know if anyone (yet) is using this feature in an
>>> (almost) production environment, but if so then they should *not* upgrade
>>> to this 0.18 release candidate until this bug is fixed.
>>> Or, well, maybe previous releases also had this bug already (I haven't
>>> had
>>> time to check) in which case it doesn't really matter.
>>>
>>> WDYT: should we accept this as a known/recognized bug (and then highlight
>>> this in the release announcement) or qualify this as a release blocker?
>>>
>>>
>> I vote that we proceed with the release and put a note not to upgrade if
>> you use this feature. That way people who don't use the feature get an
>> upgrade and the people who do use it are not any worse off as long as they
>> don't upgrade.
>>
>> Two questions on RAVE-859
>>   - Do you know if it's a logic error (we are purposely deleting the page)
>> or is it an unintended JPA delete based on referential integrity?
>>   - How will your work on the HMVC impact pages and page sharing? Will it
>> fix this issue by replacing it with a different approach?
>>
>> If we can get concurrence on RAVE-859 then here is my +1
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>> I'm holding off voting +1/-1 for now.
>>>
>>> Ate
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/02/2012 05:34 AM, Raminderjeet Singh wrote:
>>>
>>>  Discussion thread for vote on 0.18 release candidate.
>>>>
>>>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/****release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/**release.html>
>>>> <http://www.**apache.org/dev/release.html<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>>>> - can you run the demo binaries
>>>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE and NOTICE
>>>> files
>>>> - are all of the staged artifacts signed and the signature verifiable
>>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message