Hi Alessandro,
I'm planning to produce a 1.9/2.1 set of release candidates on Monday or
Tuesday next week. Do you think you would be ready by then? If not, it
doesn't look too challenging; I might go ahead and (based on your research)
commit something myself.
Karl
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
>
> activities.noDocument() only means that the current document should no
> longer be considered part of the crawl.
> In both cases it is reasonable to check the SmbAuthException text and
> throw ManifoldCFException if it seems to be bad credentials. You should
> not call activities.noDocument() in that case. In fact, you could make a
> single method that gets called from both places that decides whether the
> exception reason is that the credentials are bad.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Alessandro Benedetti <
> benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Karl,
>> taking a look to Trunk code I see a little bit of difference from the
>> environment ( 1.8) where I was working ( getDocumentVersions is not there
>> anymore), applied to the current trunk I can see 2 points where to put the
>> modification :
>>
>>
>> org.apache.manifoldcf.crawler.connectors.sharedrive.SharedDriveConnector#processDocuments
>>
>> org/apache/manifoldcf/crawler/connectors/sharedrive/SharedDriveConnector.java:692
>>
>> catch (jcifs.smb.SmbAuthException e)
>> {
>> Logging.connectors.warn("JCIFS: Authorization exception reading
>> version information for "+documentIdentifier+" - skipping");
>> if(e.getMessage().equals("Logon failure: unknown user name or bad
>> password."))
>> throw new ManifoldCFException( "SmbAuthException thrown: " +
>> e.getMessage(), e );
>> else {
>> activities.deleteDocument(documentIdentifier);
>> continue;}
>> }
>>
>> and :
>>
>> catch (jcifs.smb.SmbAuthException e)
>> {
>> Logging.connectors.warn("JCIFS: Authorization exception reading
>> document/directory "+documentIdentifier+" - skipping");
>> errorCode = e.getClass().getSimpleName().toUpperCase(Locale.ROOT);
>> errorDesc = "Authorization: "+e.getMessage();
>> // We call the delete even if it's a directory; this is harmless.
>> activities.noDocument(documentIdentifier, versionString);
>> continue;
>> }
>>
>> If I am pretty sure of the first, I have no idea what is doing the
>> "activities.noDocument" .
>>
>> Should we apply the change in there as well?
>>
>> If you confirm this I will proceed with the commit.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-04-07 16:36 GMT+01:00 Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Hi Richard,
>> >
>> > Windows SMB error messages seem to be mostly in English. We look for a
>> > number of these in the JCIFS connector. And, in any case, we don't
>> have a
>> > lot of choice, since there are no specific error codes we could use
>> > instead.
>> >
>> > Karl
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Nichols, Richard <
>> > richard.nich...@coriant.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Will checking for "Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password."
>> > work
>> > > for non-English Windows installations?
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Rick
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Karl Wright [mailto:daddy...@gmail.com]
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:52 AM
>> > > To: dev
>> > > Subject: Re: [Windows Shares Connector] Un-expected removal of all
>> > > documents
>> > >
>> > > Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking of. You can go ahead and
>> commit
>> > > this to trunk, and pull up the change to the dev_1x branch also.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > Karl
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Alessandro Benedetti <
>> > > benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Karl,
>> > > > just back to the issue, I think I solved it in a quick way ( not so
>> > much
>> > > > intrusive) :
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> org.apache.manifoldcf.crawler.connectors.sharedrive.SharedDriveConnector#getDocumentVersions
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> org/apache/manifoldcf/crawler/connectors/sharedrive/SharedDriveConnector.java:706
>> > > >
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > catch ( jcifs.smb.SmbAuthException e )
>> > > > {
>> > > > Logging.connectors.warn(
>> > > > "JCIFS: Authorization exception reading version information
>> > > > for " + documentIdentifier
>> > > > + " - skipping" );
>> > > > if(e.getMessage().equals("Logon failure: unknown user name or
>> bad
>> > > > password."))
>> > > > throw new ManifoldCFException( "SmbAuthException thrown: " +
>> > > > e.getMessage(), e );
>> > > > else
>> > > > rval[i] = null;
>> > > > }
>> > > >
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > In this way the message is checked, and if it is a Login failure we
>> > > > throw the manifoldCFException breaking the iteration ( because login
>> > > > failure means no documents will be accessible but we don't have to
>> > > > erase them) .
>> > > >
>> > > > If it is another Authorization exception ( like permissions changed
>> > > > for the folder/file) the behaviour is the same than before.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think should be enough to be safe, what do you think ?
>> > > >
>> > > > Is any other method affected by this problem ?
>> > > >
>> > > > I think should be limited to the versions check.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2015-04-02 16:32 GMT+01:00 Alessandro Benedetti <
>> > > > benedetti.ale...@gmail.com>
>> > > > :
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2015-04-02 15:58 GMT+01:00 Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Hi Alessandro,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Yes, you interpreted my reply correctly.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I think we therefore have to perform any checking operations on
>> the
>> > > > actual
>> > > > >> file being accessed. This is actually pretty easy to do without
>> > > > >> sacrificing performance. All you need to do is the following:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> try {
>> > > > >> ... do the file access operation ...
>> > > > >> } catch (SmbException e) {
>> > > > >> ... figure out from the exception whether to throw a
>> > > > ManifoldCFException
>> > > > >> or a ServiceInterruption ...
>> > > > >> ... If the exception does not include enough to distinguish
>> > between
>> > > > bad
>> > > > >> credentials and insufficient privs, then do a check RIGHT HERE
>> for
>> > bad
>> > > > >> credentials ...
>> > > > >> }
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> What do you think? The new code would only ever be called if the
>> > > > document
>> > > > >> cannot be read.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think we can proceed like you said, I am investigating right now
>> > the
>> > > > > details returned for the exception ( to understand if there is any
>> > > > > difference between wrong credentials or access denied)
>> > > > > In the case we find the "wrong credential" we have to throw the
>> > > exception
>> > > > > and stop the iteration ( this will happen the very first time
>> > assuming
>> > > > none
>> > > > > is playing server side) .
>> > > > > In this way we save the time of checking all the files ( in the
>> case
>> > of
>> > > > > wrong credentials no one will be accessible) .
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Another way can be to do this credential check at the beginning
>> and
>> > > stop
>> > > > > only if we have wrong credential ( leaving the permission check
>> file
>> > by
>> > > > > file) .
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Quite a confused scenario, but we can sort this out with little
>> > changes
>> > > > :)
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Karl
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Alessandro Benedetti <
>> > > > >> benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > OkI am currently working on that, and I will work on that next
>> > > tuesday
>> > > > >> as
>> > > > >> > well .
>> > > > >> > But what about point 2 :
>> > > > >> > " (2) the check itself is
>> > > > >> > specific to the ROOT of the tree, which the user may not have
>> > access
>> > > > >> to."
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I think I got your problem, you mean that a possible scenario
>> can
>> > > > happen
>> > > > >> > when you configure the repository connector with a user that
>> is
>> > not
>> > > > >> able
>> > > > >> > to access the root but is able to access the directories we
>> want
>> > to
>> > > > >> crawl.
>> > > > >> > In such a case the repository connector will appear to be not
>> able
>> > > to
>> > > > >> > connect, while the crawling will be still possible if you
>> > configure
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> > accessible directories in the job.
>> > > > >> > If this is correct , the situation is more complicated ...
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Cheers
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > 2015-03-31 16:44 GMT+01:00 Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > Hi Alessandro,
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Your code snippet has two problems: (1) it doesn't
>> distinguish
>> > > > between
>> > > > >> > > service interruptions and bad credentials,
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Should not be the difference between the IOException and the
>> Smb
>> > > one ?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > and (2) the check itself is
>> > > > >> > > specific to the ROOT of the tree, which the user may not have
>> > > access
>> > > > >> to.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > In check() we can get away with this but if you wire up the
>> > > check()
>> > > > >> logic
>> > > > >> > > into the crawl processing it will break some people.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > The first problem, (1), is exactly what we need to figure out
>> > > > anyway.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Karl
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Alessandro Benedetti <
>> > > > >> > > benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > > Hi karl comments follow :
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > 2015-03-31 16:18 GMT+01:00 Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com
>> >:
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Hi Alessandro,
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > There are situations where the check() method does not
>> > succeed
>> > > > but
>> > > > >> > you
>> > > > >> > > > can
>> > > > >> > > > > still crawl. So I would not do it that way, since it
>> > > > >> fundamentally
>> > > > >> > > > changes
>> > > > >> > > > > the contract.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Am I wrong or we should assume the "check()" method to
>> work as
>> > > > it's
>> > > > >> > built
>> > > > >> > > > for.
>> > > > >> > > > I mean if in some case, this method is wrongly implemented
>> ,
>> > > this
>> > > > >> can
>> > > > >> > not
>> > > > >> > > > break another assumption.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > My proposal is to have processDocuments ABORT the job
>> when
>> > it
>> > > > >> finds
>> > > > >> > bad
>> > > > >> > > > > credentials. That's very fast and will not permit a job
>> to
>> > > run
>> > > > >> for a
>> > > > >> > > > long
>> > > > >> > > > > time.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > The trick is to determine if there are bad credentials
>> > WITHOUT
>> > > > >> doing
>> > > > >> > > any
>> > > > >> > > > > more work in the processDocuments pathway than we
>> currently
>> > > are.
>> > > > >> An
>> > > > >> > > > > exception will be thrown either way, but we need to
>> figure
>> > out
>> > > > >> > whether
>> > > > >> > > > > there is any information in the exception that we can
>> use to
>> > > > >> decide
>> > > > >> > > > between
>> > > > >> > > > > bad credentials and no access permissions.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > You can help provide that by doing a simple experiment on
>> > your
>> > > > >> > client's
>> > > > >> > > > > hardware (or yours, if you have such hardware in house).
>> > > Change
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > credential to an invalid one and see what the exception
>> > > details
>> > > > >> are.
>> > > > >> > > > Then
>> > > > >> > > > > change to valid credentials and try to crawl a directory
>> > that
>> > > is
>> > > > >> not
>> > > > >> > > > > visible to the credentialed user you supplied, and make a
>> > note
>> > > > of
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > exception details in that case too.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > I was thinking to slightly modifying the getSession()
>> method
>> > > > adding
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > file exist check , something like this :
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > ...
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > try
>> > > > >> > > > {
>> > > > >> > > > // use NtlmPasswordAuthentication so that we can reuse
>> > > > >> credential
>> > > > >> > > > for DFS support
>> > > > >> > > > pa = new NtlmPasswordAuthentication( domain, username,
>> > > > password
>> > > > >> );
>> > > > >> > > > SmbFile smbconnection = new SmbFile( "smb://" + server
>> +
>> > > "/",
>> > > > >> pa );
>> > > > >> > > > smbconnectionPath = getFileCanonicalPath(
>> smbconnection );
>> > > > >> > > > smbconnection.exists();
>> > > > >> > > > }
>> > > > >> > > > catch ( MalformedURLException e )
>> > > > >> > > > {
>> > > > >> > > > Logging.connectors.error(
>> > > > >> > > > "Unable to access SMB/CIFS share: " + "smb://" + (
>> (
>> > > > domain
>> > > > >> ==
>> > > > >> > > > null ) ? "" : domain ) + ";"
>> > > > >> > > > + username + ":<password>@" + server + "/\n" +
>> e
>> > );
>> > > > >> > > > throw new ManifoldCFException( "Unable to access
>> SMB/CIFS
>> > > > >> share: "
>> > > > >> > > > + server, e,
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > ManifoldCFException.REPOSITORY_CONNECTION_ERROR );
>> > > > >> > > > } catch (SmbException e) {
>> > > > >> > > > Logging.connectors.error(
>> > > > >> > > > "Unable to access SMB/CIFS share: Credential
>> not
>> > > valid
>> > > > >> - "
>> > > > >> > > > + "smb://" + ((domain == null) ? "" : domain) + ";"
>> > > > >> > > > + username + ":<password>@" + server +
>> > > "/\n" +
>> > > > >> e);
>> > > > >> > > > throw new ManifoldCFException( "Unable to access
>> SMB/CIFS
>> > > > share:
>> > > > >> > > > Credential not valid - " + server, e,
>> > > > >> > > >
>> ManifoldCFException.REPOSITORY_CONNECTION_ERROR );
>> > > > >> > > > }
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Catching the smbException should make the trick.
>> > > > >> > > > Anyway I will go more in details.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Cheers
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Karl
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Alessandro Benedetti <
>> > > > >> > > > > benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Currently we are checking each of the String[]
>> > oldVersions ,
>> > > > >> trying
>> > > > >> > > to
>> > > > >> > > > > > access it ...
>> > > > >> > > > > > So in the scenario I described the current performances
>> > are
>> > > > >> quite
>> > > > >> > > > bad...
>> > > > >> > > > > > We would need to avoid at all the scan of the oldDocs
>> if
>> > we
>> > > > know
>> > > > >> > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > provided credential are not valid anymore .
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Let me be extreme, but what about not allowing the job
>> to
>> > > > start
>> > > > >> at
>> > > > >> > > all
>> > > > >> > > > if
>> > > > >> > > > > > the Repository Connector is currently broken ( i.e. the
>> > > > >> connection
>> > > > >> > is
>> > > > >> > > > not
>> > > > >> > > > > > working, and we know that because of the check method)
>> .
>> > > > >> > > > > > In this way we avoid to destroy already existent
>> indexes
>> > and
>> > > > we
>> > > > >> > > simply
>> > > > >> > > > > > communicate a message in the job giving advice the job
>> can
>> > > not
>> > > > >> > start
>> > > > >> > > > > > because Repository connector is currently offline ( and
>> > > > showing
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > > explanation) .
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Does this make sense ?
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > 2015-03-31 15:30 GMT+01:00 Karl Wright <
>> > daddy...@gmail.com
>> > > >:
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Alessandro,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > If you put a check in the processDocuments method, it
>> > will
>> > > > be
>> > > > >> > > called
>> > > > >> > > > > for
>> > > > >> > > > > > > every group of documents. That's fine, but if you
>> > > structure
>> > > > >> it
>> > > > >> > as
>> > > > >> > > a
>> > > > >> > > > > > > separate call it would impact performance. That is
>> why
>> > I
>> > > > >> suggest
>> > > > >> > > > just
>> > > > >> > > > > > > doing a better job of interpreting the existing
>> > > exceptions.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Karl
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Alessandro
>> Benedetti <
>> > > > >> > > > > > > benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > As an addition, this should be quite simple, not
>> > > > proceeding
>> > > > >> > with
>> > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > processDocuments method, if the
>> RepositoryConnector is
>> > > not
>> > > > >> able
>> > > > >> > > to
>> > > > >> > > > > > > connect(
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > check method return not a proper message).
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Right ?
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Wondering where is the proper point to enter the
>> > action
>> > > :)
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Cheers
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > 2015-03-31 14:59 GMT+01:00 Alessandro Benedetti <
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > benedetti.ale...@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > :
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes Karl,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > I was thinking exactly that, to first check if
>> the
>> > > > >> > credentials
>> > > > >> > > > are
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > valid,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > before scanning all the documents.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > This because permissions per files depend on
>> > > > users/groups,
>> > > > >> > but
>> > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > current
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > scenario is not in-validating the user, but
>> > > invalidating
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > access
>> > > > >> > > > > > of
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > user.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > An error must be thrown, but the docs not
>> deleted (
>> > > not
>> > > > >> even
>> > > > >> > > > > > scanned) .
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Furthermore, what will happen, in the case the
>> > server
>> > > is
>> > > > >> > down ?
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Are we safe in that scenario ?
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Cheers
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 2015-03-31 14:42 GMT+01:00 Karl Wright <
>> > > > >> daddy...@gmail.com>:
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> This is actually pretty standard behavior across
>> > our
>> > > > >> > connector
>> > > > >> > > > > > family,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> has been true since Day One. The behavior comes
>> > from
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > basic
>> > > > >> > > > > > broad
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> requirement that the crawler should keep going
>> and
>> > > skip
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > document
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > when
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the permissions do not allow it to be fetched.
>> > With
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > Windows
>> > > > >> > > > > > Share
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> connector, it's sometimes the case (when DFS is
>> > used
>> > > a
>> > > > >> lot)
>> > > > >> > > that
>> > > > >> > > > > > whole
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> subtrees of documents are not fetchable using
>> the
>> > > > >> > credentials
>> > > > >> > > > > > > supplied.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> So
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> it is not so easy to just check for valid
>> > credentials
>> > > > at
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > beginning.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> For a solution, I'd be inclined to look for a
>> way
>> > to
>> > > > >> figure
>> > > > >> > > out
>> > > > >> > > > if
>> > > > >> > > > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> credentials are actually *invalid*, and abort
>> the
>> > job
>> > > > if
>> > > > >> so.
>> > > > >> > > > This
>> > > > >> > > > > > is
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> distinct from the case where the credentials are
>> > > valid
>> > > > >> but
>> > > > >> > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > connector
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> doesn't have permissions to read the document.
>> It
>> > > will
>> > > > >> take
>> > > > >> > > > some
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> experimentation to see if we get back different
>> > > > exception
>> > > > >> > text
>> > > > >> > > > in
>> > > > >> > > > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > two
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> situations.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Karl
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Alessandro
>> > > Benedetti <
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> abenede...@apache.org
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi guys,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > playing with the Windows Shares Connector in
>> > > > ManifoldCF
>> > > > >> > 1.8
>> > > > >> > > I
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> encountered
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > this problem :
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Scenario*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *1)* Indexing windows Shares server
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *2)* Indexing successfully finished with N
>> docs
>> > > > indexed
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *3)* Offline ,while no indexing is happening,
>> > > Shares
>> > > > >> > server
>> > > > >> > > > > side,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Administrator password changes
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *4) *Repository Connector is not able to
>> connect
>> > > > >> > anymore(of
>> > > > >> > > > > course
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> because
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > the password has changed)
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *5)* Next indexing cycle, ALL docs are removed
>> > from
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> > > index
>> > > > >> > > > .
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Expected Behaviour*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > As I user I would like to see an error
>> message,
>> > > that
>> > > > >> will
>> > > > >> > > let
>> > > > >> > > > me
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> understand
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > the issue, not losing all my N indexed docs .
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Reason*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Taking a look into the code, the problems
>> seems
>> > to
>> > > be
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> > > the :
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> org.apache.manifoldcf.crawler.connectors.sharedrive.SharedDriveConnector#getDocumentVersions
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > where it tries to access each document
>> singularly
>> > > > >> through
>> > > > >> > > > Samba,
>> > > > >> > > > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > removing them one by one if not reachable
>> > anymore.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Solution*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Before scanning each document, we have to be
>> sure
>> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > connection
>> > > > >> > > > > > is
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > working.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > If not this is only armful.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I will continue investigating, but I would
>> like
>> > > your
>> > > > >> > opinion
>> > > > >> > > > as
>> > > > >> > > > > > well
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Cheers
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > --
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > --------------------------
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Visiting card :
>> > > http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794
>> England
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Visiting card :
>> > http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Visiting card :
>> http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > > > --------------------------
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > >> > > > > > Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > >> > > > > > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > >> > > > > > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > >> > > > > > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > --------------------------
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > >> > > > Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > >> > > > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > >> > > > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > >> > > > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > --
>> > > > >> > --------------------------
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > >> > Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > >> > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > >> > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > >> > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > --------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > > Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > > >
>> > > > > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > --------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > > Benedetti Alessandro
>> > > > Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>> > > >
>> > > > "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> > > > In the forests of the night,
>> > > > What immortal hand or eye
>> > > > Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>> > > >
>> > > > William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > ============================================================
>> > > The information contained in this message may be privileged
>> > > and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
>> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
>> > > or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
>> > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
>> > > dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
>> > > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
>> > > please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
>> > > deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Coriant-Tellabs
>> > > ============================================================
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------
>>
>> Benedetti Alessandro
>> Visiting card : http://about.me/alessandro_benedetti
>>
>> "Tyger, tyger burning bright
>> In the forests of the night,
>> What immortal hand or eye
>> Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
>>
>> William Blake - Songs of Experience -1794 England
>>
>
>
