[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15865387#comment-15865387
]
Marcel Reutegger commented on OAK-5229:
---------------------------------------
I'm open for other suggestions and would like to hear what others think about
this. Alex and I discussed this offline and we thought it would be best if the
implementation was as conservative as possible. That is, it does not remove
items, unless they violate the node type definition. It would be up to the
application to remove such properties if necessary.
[~anchela], [~tmueller], [~mduerig] what's your view on this?
> Using Node.setPrimaryType() should fail if non-matching childnodes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-5229
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5229
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
> Affects Versions: 1.5.14
> Reporter: Tobias Bocanegra
> Assignee: Alex Parvulescu
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 1.8, 1.6.1
>
> Attachments: OAK-5229.patch, OAK-5229-tests.patch, OAK-5229-v2.patch,
> OAK-5229-v3.patch, OAK-5229-v4.patch
>
>
> 1. Assume the following:
> {noformat}
> /testNode [nt:unstructured]
> /unstructured_child [nt:unstructured]
> {noformat}
> 2. setting "/testNode".setPrimaryType("nt:folder")
> 3. save the session.
> Altering the primary type works, thus leaving the repository in an
> inconsistent state.
> Interestingly, subsequent calls to
> "/testNiode/unstructured_child".setProperty() will fail:
> {noformat}
> javax.jcr.nodetype.ConstraintViolationException: OakConstraint0001:
> /test_node[[nt:folder]]: No matching definition found for child node
> unstructured_child with effective type [nt:unstructured]
> {noformat}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
