Re: cocoon 2.1.8 - RepeaterJXPathBinding, order of rows is inverted

[Dennis Dam]

Antonio,

thanks for the response.. I added the issue to Jira under COCOON-1864 
<http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1864>.

regards,
Dennis Dam

Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Hi Dennis,

thanks for your contribution. Would you kindly add it to our issues 
traking system [1]?

Many thanks in advance,

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo

[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON

Dennis Dam escribió:
Hello all,

I found a bug in the forms block of Cocoon 2.1.8 / 2.1.9. I found 
that putting a min-size / initial-size attribute on a repeater 
element in the CForms model, inverts the order of rows upon binding 
the form. So for example the input document looked like:

<document>
 <row>a</row>
 <row>b</row>
 <row>c</row>
 <row>d</row>
</document>

and my repeater model element's intial-size was set at 3. After 
transforming the forms template with the forms transformer, I see the 
following field instances (pseudocode):

<field>c</field>
<field>b</field>
<field>a</field>
<field>d</field>

So what happens? The JXPathbinding for the repeater inverts the order 
of the elements with index < initial-size! I traced this bug back to 
the org.apache.cocoon.forms.binding.RepeaterJXPathBinding class, 
where I found the following code snippet in the doLoad() method:

           while (rowPointers.hasNext()) {
               // create a new row, take that as the frmModelSubContext
               Repeater.RepeaterRow thisRow;
               if (initialSize > 0) {
                   thisRow = repeater.getRow(--initialSize);
               } else {
                   thisRow = repeater.addRow();
               }


I changed this into:

       int currentRow = 0;
       while (rowPointers.hasNext()) {
           // create a new row, take that as the frmModelSubContext
           Repeater.RepeaterRow thisRow;
           if (currentRow < initialSize) {
               thisRow = repeater.getRow(currentRow++);
           } else {
               thisRow = repeater.addRow();
           }

and now the binding works correctly / like I want it to work :). I 
must note that I do NOT use an identity in my repeater binding 
declaration. But I think it would be logical that leaving out the 
identity element should result in preservation of the order the 
elements occur in the input document.

Is there a reason for inverting the binding order of the "minimum set 
of rows"? If not, could someone fix this issue in 2.1.8 / 2.1.9?

regards,
Dennis Dam