Hi Karl,
I will commit our agreed changes today in the trunk and then in the 1.9.x
branch if it is straightforward !
Cheers
2015-04-09 11:55 GMT+01:00 Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>:
> 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
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
--------------------------
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
