[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5753?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15882585#comment-15882585
 ] 

Michael Dürig commented on OAK-5753:
------------------------------------

I think the concerns from that comment have been addressed subsequently. Wrt. 
to backwards compatibility we should be better off now as we only deal with 
Segment Tar, which had the timestamps from the beginning on. Still I wouldn't 
rely on them being there but implement a way to expose them through the 
{{JournalReader}} if they are. 

> Consistency check incorrectly fails for broken partial paths 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-5753
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5753
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: run, segment-tar
>    Affects Versions: 1.8
>            Reporter: Andrei Dulceanu
>            Assignee: Andrei Dulceanu
>              Labels: tooling
>             Fix For: 1.7.0, 1.8
>
>         Attachments: OAK-5753.patch
>
>
> To better explain the bug I'll describe the content of the revisions:
> # Valid Revision
> Adds child nodes {{a}}, {{b}}, {{c}}, {{d}}, {{e}}, {{f}} with various 
> properties (blobs included)
> # Invalid Revision
> Adds child node {{z}} with some blob properties and then corrupts the 
> {{NODE}} record holding {{z}}.
> Now when the consistency check is run, it correctly detects that the second 
> revision is broken, *marks the path {{/z}} as corrupt* and then continues 
> checking the first valid revision. Because of a check introduced for OAK-5556 
> [1], which tries to validate the user provided absolute paths before checking 
> them, the checker tries to check {{/z}} in the first revision, where of 
> course it can't find it. Therefore the check incorrectly fails for this 
> revision, although it shouldn't have to.
> /cc [~mduerig], [~frm]



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Reply via email to