[jira] [Commented] (OAK-6535) Synchronous Lucene Property Indexes
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6535?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16687564#comment-16687564 ] Thomas Mueller commented on OAK-6535: - [~chetanm] I couldn't find any documentation except for https://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Synchronous%20Lucene%20Property%20Indexes - do you know if there is any? > Synchronous Lucene Property Indexes > --- > > Key: OAK-6535 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6535 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: lucene, property-index >Reporter: Chetan Mehrotra >Assignee: Chetan Mehrotra >Priority: Major > Fix For: 1.7.12, 1.8.0 > > Attachments: OAK-6535-v1.diff > > > Oak 1.6 added support for Lucene Hybrid Index (OAK-4412). That enables near > real time (NRT) support for Lucene based indexes. It also had a limited > support for sync indexes. This feature aims to improve that to next level and > enable support for sync property indexes. > More details at > https://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Synchronous%20Lucene%20Property%20Indexes -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7182) Make it possible to update Guava
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7182?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16687489#comment-16687489 ] Julian Reschke commented on OAK-7182: - My understanding is that this is blocked by: - OAK-7545 - a general fear that upstream projects can't update their Guava version either > Make it possible to update Guava > > > Key: OAK-7182 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7182 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Wish >Reporter: Julian Reschke >Assignee: Julian Reschke >Priority: Minor > Attachments: GuavaTests.java, OAK-7182-guava-21-3.diff, > OAK-7182-guava-21-4.diff, OAK-7182-guava-21.diff, OAK-7182-guava-23.6.1.diff, > guava.diff > > > We currently rely on Guava 15, and this affects all users of Oak because they > essentially need to use the same version. > This is an overall issue to investigate what would need to be done in Oak in > order to make updates possible. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7889) Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16687294#comment-16687294 ] Hudson commented on OAK-7889: - Build is still failing. Failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak #1792|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1792/] [console log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1792/console] > Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed > - > > Key: OAK-7889 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak > #1778|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/] [console > log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7182) Make it possible to update Guava
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7182?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16687285#comment-16687285 ] Nelson Mei commented on OAK-7182: - What is the current state of this? Are the subtasks a good indication of where this currently is / needs to be done? Very interested in helping where I can. > Make it possible to update Guava > > > Key: OAK-7182 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7182 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Wish >Reporter: Julian Reschke >Assignee: Julian Reschke >Priority: Minor > Attachments: GuavaTests.java, OAK-7182-guava-21-3.diff, > OAK-7182-guava-21-4.diff, OAK-7182-guava-21.diff, OAK-7182-guava-23.6.1.diff, > guava.diff > > > We currently rely on Guava 15, and this affects all users of Oak because they > essentially need to use the same version. > This is an overall issue to investigate what would need to be done in Oak in > order to make updates possible. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Resolved] (OAK-7898) Facet queries with UNION should do trivial merge of facets from sub-queries
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Vikas Saurabh resolved OAK-7898.
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 1.9.12
1.10
Fixed on trunk at [r1846617|https://svn.apache.org/r1846617].
[~tmueller], [~teofili], it'd great if you can have a look. I don't feel
comfortable with changes leaking into {{ResultRowImp}}. But, that's the best
case of simplest solution I could find because {{UnionQueryImpl}} seemed to be
tied to {{ResultRowImp}} and not {{ResultRow}}.
> Facet queries with UNION should do trivial merge of facets from sub-queries
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7898
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7898
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: lucene
>Reporter: Vikas Saurabh
>Assignee: Vikas Saurabh
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.10, 1.9.12
>
>
> Queries such as {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1' or @text =
> 't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat} get split into 2 sub-queries such as
> # {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
> # {noformat} //*[@test = 't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
> Trivially merging facets (union of labels and sum of counts for same labels)
> across sub-queries in generally wrong because of potential intersection rows.
> But, in common practical cases, intersections aren't a big majority so,
> albeit incorrect, trivial merge shouldn't be off huge amount. Note that usual
> path restrictions and node type restrictions are the most common case with
> {{OR}} and they do have have no intersection in almost all cases.
> Also, while we'd re-sort the merged facets but we'd make no attempt to prune
> the list to match limits on facet count implied by index-definitions. This is
> basically for 2 reasons:
> * sub-queries might get answered by separate indexes (this could be the case
> with search on different node types)
> * merge of facets would happen in query engine and we won't want to route
> back information about index-definition or its semantics from index provider
> to query engine
> That said, since it's going to give incorrect result by design, we need to
> very explicit in our documentation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7898) Facet queries with UNION should do trivial merge of facets from sub-queries
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Vikas Saurabh updated OAK-7898:
---
Description:
Queries such as {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1' or @text =
't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat} get split into 2 sub-queries such as
# {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
# {noformat} //*[@test = 't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
Trivially merging facets (union of labels and sum of counts for same labels)
across sub-queries in generally wrong because of potential intersection rows.
But, in common practical cases, intersections aren't a big majority so, albeit
incorrect, trivial merge shouldn't be off huge amount. Note that usual path
restrictions and node type restrictions are the most common case with {{OR}}
and they do have have no intersection in almost all cases.
Also, while we'd re-sort the merged facets but we'd make no attempt to prune
the list to match limits on facet count implied by index-definitions. This is
basically for 2 reasons:
* sub-queries might get answered by separate indexes (this could be the case
with search on different node types)
* merge of facets would happen in query engine and we won't want to route back
information about index-definition or its semantics from index provider to
query engine
That said, since it's going to give incorrect result by design, we need to very
explicit in our documentation.
was:
Queries such as {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1' or @text =
't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat} get split into 2 sub-queries such as
# {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
# {noformat} //*[@test = 't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
Trivially merging facets (union of labels and sum of counts for same labels)
across sub-queries in generally wrong because of potential intersection rows.
But, in common practical cases, intersections aren't a big majority so, albeit
incorrect, trivial merge shouldn't be off huge amount. Note that usual path
restrictions and node type restrictions are the most common case with {{OR}}
and they do have have no intersection in almost all cases.
That said, since it's going to give incorrect result by design, we need to very
explicit in our documentation.
> Facet queries with UNION should do trivial merge of facets from sub-queries
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7898
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7898
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: lucene
>Reporter: Vikas Saurabh
>Assignee: Vikas Saurabh
>Priority: Major
>
> Queries such as {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1' or @text =
> 't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat} get split into 2 sub-queries such as
> # {noformat} //*[@name = 'Node1']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
> # {noformat} //*[@test = 't2']/(rep:facet(text)) {noformat}
> Trivially merging facets (union of labels and sum of counts for same labels)
> across sub-queries in generally wrong because of potential intersection rows.
> But, in common practical cases, intersections aren't a big majority so,
> albeit incorrect, trivial merge shouldn't be off huge amount. Note that usual
> path restrictions and node type restrictions are the most common case with
> {{OR}} and they do have have no intersection in almost all cases.
> Also, while we'd re-sort the merged facets but we'd make no attempt to prune
> the list to match limits on facet count implied by index-definitions. This is
> basically for 2 reasons:
> * sub-queries might get answered by separate indexes (this could be the case
> with search on different node types)
> * merge of facets would happen in query engine and we won't want to route
> back information about index-definition or its semantics from index provider
> to query engine
> That said, since it's going to give incorrect result by design, we need to
> very explicit in our documentation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7900) Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686788#comment-16686788
]
Lars Krapf commented on OAK-7900:
-
[~anchela]: Looks very good to me too, thanks.
> Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: security-spi
>Reporter: angela
>Assignee: angela
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.10
>
> Attachments: OAK-7900.patch
>
>
> [~chaotic], as discussed off list we lack the ability to react to
> {{User.disable(String)}} with the current {{AuthorizableAction}} interface,
> while at the same time encouraging API consumers to disable users instead of
> removing them.
> One use case for such a method would be deleting additional information
> stored with the user account such as e.g. profile data, preferences, as soon
> as the user gets disabled.
> Since extending {{AuthorizableAction}} would require a major bump of the
> exported version, I would suggest to introduce a new {{UserAction}}
> interface, providing that new method, in correspondance to {{GroupAction}},
> which covers group specific actions. And, in an ideal world
> {{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} would also reside with {{UserAction}}.
> [~stillalex], wdyt?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7900) Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
angela updated OAK-7900:
Fix Version/s: 1.10
> Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: security-spi
>Reporter: angela
>Assignee: angela
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.10
>
> Attachments: OAK-7900.patch
>
>
> [~chaotic], as discussed off list we lack the ability to react to
> {{User.disable(String)}} with the current {{AuthorizableAction}} interface,
> while at the same time encouraging API consumers to disable users instead of
> removing them.
> One use case for such a method would be deleting additional information
> stored with the user account such as e.g. profile data, preferences, as soon
> as the user gets disabled.
> Since extending {{AuthorizableAction}} would require a major bump of the
> exported version, I would suggest to introduce a new {{UserAction}}
> interface, providing that new method, in correspondance to {{GroupAction}},
> which covers group specific actions. And, in an ideal world
> {{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} would also reside with {{UserAction}}.
> [~stillalex], wdyt?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7900) Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686771#comment-16686771
]
angela commented on OAK-7900:
-
[~stillalex], [~chaotic], proposed patch attached for review. i decided to
additionally add grant/revoke impersonation to the set of user-actions. with
that i think we have all the write operations covered with the
authorizableaction and the derived subclasses. i left
{{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} where it is even if it would feel
better to have it on the new {{UserAction}}.
> Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: security-spi
>Reporter: angela
>Assignee: angela
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.10
>
> Attachments: OAK-7900.patch
>
>
> [~chaotic], as discussed off list we lack the ability to react to
> {{User.disable(String)}} with the current {{AuthorizableAction}} interface,
> while at the same time encouraging API consumers to disable users instead of
> removing them.
> One use case for such a method would be deleting additional information
> stored with the user account such as e.g. profile data, preferences, as soon
> as the user gets disabled.
> Since extending {{AuthorizableAction}} would require a major bump of the
> exported version, I would suggest to introduce a new {{UserAction}}
> interface, providing that new method, in correspondance to {{GroupAction}},
> which covers group specific actions. And, in an ideal world
> {{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} would also reside with {{UserAction}}.
> [~stillalex], wdyt?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7900) Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
angela updated OAK-7900:
Attachment: OAK-7900.patch
> Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: security-spi
>Reporter: angela
>Assignee: angela
>Priority: Major
> Attachments: OAK-7900.patch
>
>
> [~chaotic], as discussed off list we lack the ability to react to
> {{User.disable(String)}} with the current {{AuthorizableAction}} interface,
> while at the same time encouraging API consumers to disable users instead of
> removing them.
> One use case for such a method would be deleting additional information
> stored with the user account such as e.g. profile data, preferences, as soon
> as the user gets disabled.
> Since extending {{AuthorizableAction}} would require a major bump of the
> exported version, I would suggest to introduce a new {{UserAction}}
> interface, providing that new method, in correspondance to {{GroupAction}},
> which covers group specific actions. And, in an ideal world
> {{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} would also reside with {{UserAction}}.
> [~stillalex], wdyt?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7905) Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686761#comment-16686761
]
Julian Reschke commented on OAK-7905:
-
I usually add the "candidate" for version x once version x-next is updated.
So my proposal would be to do the "backports" for 1.6, and mark both as
candidates for 1.4 for future consideration.
> Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
> --
>
> Key: OAK-7905
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: parent
>Reporter: Alex Deparvu
>Priority: Minor
>
> Current findbugs-maven-plugin fails on maven 3.6.0:
> {noformat}
> > mvn clean verify -Ppedantic
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs (findbugs) on project
> oak-parent: Unable to parse configuration of mojo
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs for parameter
> pluginArtifacts: Cannot assign configuration entry 'pluginArtifacts' with
> value '${plugin.artifacts}' of type
> java.util.Collections.UnmodifiableRandomAccessList to property of type
> java.util.ArrayList -> [Help 1]
> {noformat}
> it needs an update to at least 3.0.4 (3.0.5 is the latest released version).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Assigned] (OAK-7900) Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
angela reassigned OAK-7900:
---
Assignee: angela
> Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: security-spi
>Reporter: angela
>Assignee: angela
>Priority: Major
>
> [~chaotic], as discussed off list we lack the ability to react to
> {{User.disable(String)}} with the current {{AuthorizableAction}} interface,
> while at the same time encouraging API consumers to disable users instead of
> removing them.
> One use case for such a method would be deleting additional information
> stored with the user account such as e.g. profile data, preferences, as soon
> as the user gets disabled.
> Since extending {{AuthorizableAction}} would require a major bump of the
> exported version, I would suggest to introduce a new {{UserAction}}
> interface, providing that new method, in correspondance to {{GroupAction}},
> which covers group specific actions. And, in an ideal world
> {{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} would also reside with {{UserAction}}.
> [~stillalex], wdyt?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (OAK-7905) Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686745#comment-16686745
]
Alex Deparvu edited comment on OAK-7905 at 11/14/18 3:48 PM:
-
our updates crossed :) I see OAK-7368 (and OAK-7578) is marked for 1.6 backport
already. what about the other branches?
was (Author: alex.parvulescu):
our updates crossed :) I see OAK-7368 is marked for 1.6 backport already. what
about the other branches?
> Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
> --
>
> Key: OAK-7905
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: parent
>Reporter: Alex Deparvu
>Priority: Minor
>
> Current findbugs-maven-plugin fails on maven 3.6.0:
> {noformat}
> > mvn clean verify -Ppedantic
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs (findbugs) on project
> oak-parent: Unable to parse configuration of mojo
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs for parameter
> pluginArtifacts: Cannot assign configuration entry 'pluginArtifacts' with
> value '${plugin.artifacts}' of type
> java.util.Collections.UnmodifiableRandomAccessList to property of type
> java.util.ArrayList -> [Help 1]
> {noformat}
> it needs an update to at least 3.0.4 (3.0.5 is the latest released version).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7905) Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686727#comment-16686727
]
Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-7905:
---
build seems to pass with 3.0.5. [~reschke] anything in particular to watch out
for here?
> Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
> --
>
> Key: OAK-7905
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: parent
>Reporter: Alex Deparvu
>Priority: Minor
>
> Current findbugs-maven-plugin fails on maven 3.6.0:
> {noformat}
> > mvn clean verify -Ppedantic
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs (findbugs) on project
> oak-parent: Unable to parse configuration of mojo
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs for parameter
> pluginArtifacts: Cannot assign configuration entry 'pluginArtifacts' with
> value '${plugin.artifacts}' of type
> java.util.Collections.UnmodifiableRandomAccessList to property of type
> java.util.ArrayList -> [Help 1]
> {noformat}
> it needs an update to at least 3.0.4 (3.0.5 is the latest released version).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7905) Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686745#comment-16686745
]
Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-7905:
---
our updates crossed :) I see OAK-7368 is marked for 1.6 backport already. what
about the other branches?
> Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
> --
>
> Key: OAK-7905
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: parent
>Reporter: Alex Deparvu
>Priority: Minor
>
> Current findbugs-maven-plugin fails on maven 3.6.0:
> {noformat}
> > mvn clean verify -Ppedantic
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs (findbugs) on project
> oak-parent: Unable to parse configuration of mojo
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs for parameter
> pluginArtifacts: Cannot assign configuration entry 'pluginArtifacts' with
> value '${plugin.artifacts}' of type
> java.util.Collections.UnmodifiableRandomAccessList to property of type
> java.util.ArrayList -> [Help 1]
> {noformat}
> it needs an update to at least 3.0.4 (3.0.5 is the latest released version).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7905) Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686718#comment-16686718
]
Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-7905:
---
same applies of curse for branches: 1.4, 1.2 and 1.0 which are all on {{3.0.0}}
> Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
> --
>
> Key: OAK-7905
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: parent
>Reporter: Alex Deparvu
>Priority: Minor
>
> Current findbugs-maven-plugin fails on maven 3.6.0:
> {noformat}
> > mvn clean verify -Ppedantic
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs (findbugs) on project
> oak-parent: Unable to parse configuration of mojo
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs for parameter
> pluginArtifacts: Cannot assign configuration entry 'pluginArtifacts' with
> value '${plugin.artifacts}' of type
> java.util.Collections.UnmodifiableRandomAccessList to property of type
> java.util.ArrayList -> [Help 1]
> {noformat}
> it needs an update to at least 3.0.4 (3.0.5 is the latest released version).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7905) Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686723#comment-16686723
]
Julian Reschke commented on OAK-7905:
-
Or we can switch to spotbugs as on the newer branches.
> Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
> --
>
> Key: OAK-7905
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: parent
>Reporter: Alex Deparvu
>Priority: Minor
>
> Current findbugs-maven-plugin fails on maven 3.6.0:
> {noformat}
> > mvn clean verify -Ppedantic
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs (findbugs) on project
> oak-parent: Unable to parse configuration of mojo
> org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs for parameter
> pluginArtifacts: Cannot assign configuration entry 'pluginArtifacts' with
> value '${plugin.artifacts}' of type
> java.util.Collections.UnmodifiableRandomAccessList to property of type
> java.util.ArrayList -> [Help 1]
> {noformat}
> it needs an update to at least 3.0.4 (3.0.5 is the latest released version).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7900) Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686708#comment-16686708
]
Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-7900:
---
+1
(weird that this is considered a major change, I would have not seen it this
way.)
> Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
> ---
>
> Key: OAK-7900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: security-spi
>Reporter: angela
>Priority: Major
>
> [~chaotic], as discussed off list we lack the ability to react to
> {{User.disable(String)}} with the current {{AuthorizableAction}} interface,
> while at the same time encouraging API consumers to disable users instead of
> removing them.
> One use case for such a method would be deleting additional information
> stored with the user account such as e.g. profile data, preferences, as soon
> as the user gets disabled.
> Since extending {{AuthorizableAction}} would require a major bump of the
> exported version, I would suggest to introduce a new {{UserAction}}
> interface, providing that new method, in correspondance to {{GroupAction}},
> which covers group specific actions. And, in an ideal world
> {{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} would also reside with {{UserAction}}.
> [~stillalex], wdyt?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-7905) Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
Alex Deparvu created OAK-7905:
-
Summary: Update findbugs-maven-plugin on 1.6 branch
Key: OAK-7905
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7905
Project: Jackrabbit Oak
Issue Type: Task
Components: parent
Reporter: Alex Deparvu
Current findbugs-maven-plugin fails on maven 3.6.0:
{noformat}
> mvn clean verify -Ppedantic
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs (findbugs) on project
oak-parent: Unable to parse configuration of mojo
org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.0:findbugs for parameter
pluginArtifacts: Cannot assign configuration entry 'pluginArtifacts' with value
'${plugin.artifacts}' of type
java.util.Collections.UnmodifiableRandomAccessList to property of type
java.util.ArrayList -> [Help 1]
{noformat}
it needs an update to at least 3.0.4 (3.0.5 is the latest released version).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7904) Exporting query duration per index metrics with Sling Metrics / DropWizard
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7904?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Paul Chibulcuteanu updated OAK-7904: Issue Type: Task (was: Bug) > Exporting query duration per index metrics with Sling Metrics / DropWizard > -- > > Key: OAK-7904 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7904 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Task > Components: indexing, query >Reporter: Paul Chibulcuteanu >Priority: Major > Fix For: 1.9.10 > > > Purpose of this task is to evaluate & create metric which calculates the > average duration of query for each index. > This metric can be later used to evaluate which index(s) need to be optimised. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-7904) Exporting query duration per index metrics with Sling Metrics / DropWizard
Paul Chibulcuteanu created OAK-7904: --- Summary: Exporting query duration per index metrics with Sling Metrics / DropWizard Key: OAK-7904 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7904 Project: Jackrabbit Oak Issue Type: Bug Components: indexing, query Reporter: Paul Chibulcuteanu Fix For: 1.9.10 Purpose of this task is to evaluate & create metric which calculates the average duration of query for each index. This metric can be later used to evaluate which index(s) need to be optimised. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7889) Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686599#comment-16686599 ] Hudson commented on OAK-7889: - Build is still failing. Failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak #1791|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1791/] [console log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1791/console] > Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed > - > > Key: OAK-7889 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak > #1778|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/] [console > log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Resolved] (OAK-7903) Corrupt index metric potentially reporting corruptions on every index update
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7903?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tommaso Teofili resolved OAK-7903.
--
Resolution: Fixed
fixed in r1846588.
> Corrupt index metric potentially reporting corruptions on every index update
>
>
> Key: OAK-7903
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7903
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core
>Reporter: Tommaso Teofili
>Assignee: Tommaso Teofili
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.9.12
>
>
> Corrupt-index metric shows up increasing numbers of corruptions also on idle
> Oak repos.
> It looks like the current {{metric#mark}} call on
> {{TrackingCorruptIndexHandler#markWorkingIndexes}} is wrong because if an
> index that was not failing got updated it causes the metric count to increase.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-7903) Corrupt index metric potentially reporting corruptions on every index update
Tommaso Teofili created OAK-7903:
Summary: Corrupt index metric potentially reporting corruptions on
every index update
Key: OAK-7903
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7903
Project: Jackrabbit Oak
Issue Type: Bug
Components: core
Reporter: Tommaso Teofili
Assignee: Tommaso Teofili
Fix For: 1.9.12
Corrupt-index metric shows up increasing numbers of corruptions also on idle
Oak repos.
It looks like the current {{metric#mark}} call on
{{TrackingCorruptIndexHandler#markWorkingIndexes}} is wrong because if an index
that was not failing got updated it causes the metric count to increase.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7889) Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686516#comment-16686516 ] Hudson commented on OAK-7889: - Build is still failing. Failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak #1790|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1790/] [console log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1790/console] > Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed > - > > Key: OAK-7889 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak > #1778|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/] [console > log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-7902) Update osgi-mock to 2.4.2
Julian Reschke created OAK-7902: --- Summary: Update osgi-mock to 2.4.2 Key: OAK-7902 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7902 Project: Jackrabbit Oak Issue Type: Task Components: parent Affects Versions: 1.9.11 Reporter: Julian Reschke Assignee: Julian Reschke Fix For: 1.10 The current version (2.3.6) has an indirect dependency on the findbugs annotations that we already got rid of. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7901) NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686502#comment-16686502 ] Julian Reschke commented on OAK-7901: - trunk: [r1846581|http://svn.apache.org/r1846581] > NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull > -- > > Key: OAK-7901 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: core >Affects Versions: 1.9.11 >Reporter: Julian Reschke >Assignee: Julian Reschke >Priority: Minor > Labels: candidate_oak_1_8 > Fix For: 1.10, 1.9.12 > > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7511. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Resolved] (OAK-7901) NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Julian Reschke resolved OAK-7901. - Resolution: Fixed Fix Version/s: 1.9.12 > NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull > -- > > Key: OAK-7901 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: core >Affects Versions: 1.9.11 >Reporter: Julian Reschke >Assignee: Julian Reschke >Priority: Minor > Labels: candidate_oak_1_8 > Fix For: 1.10, 1.9.12 > > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7511. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7889) Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686477#comment-16686477 ] Hudson commented on OAK-7889: - Build is still failing. Failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak #1789|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1789/] [console log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1789/console] > Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed > - > > Key: OAK-7889 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak > #1778|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/] [console > log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7878) Add unit test for LoggingHook
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7878?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686467#comment-16686467 ] Francesco Mari commented on OAK-7878: - [~ahanikel], I committed the most recent patch at r1846579. > Add unit test for LoggingHook > - > > Key: OAK-7878 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7878 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Test > Components: segment-tar >Affects Versions: 1.9.10 >Reporter: Axel Hanikel >Assignee: Francesco Mari >Priority: Minor > Fix For: 1.10 > > Attachments: 0001-OAK-7878-Add-LoggingHookTest.patch, > 0001-OAK-7878-Add-LoggingHookTest.patch, OAK-7878-02.patch > > > Add a unit test for LoggingHook. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (OAK-7878) Add unit test for LoggingHook
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7878?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686467#comment-16686467
]
Francesco Mari edited comment on OAK-7878 at 11/14/18 12:52 PM:
[~ahanikel], I committed the most recent patch at r1846579. I guess the only
thing that's left now is to add actual tests in {{LoggingHookTest}}.
was (Author: frm):
[~ahanikel], I committed the most recent patch at r1846579.
> Add unit test for LoggingHook
> -
>
> Key: OAK-7878
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7878
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Test
> Components: segment-tar
>Affects Versions: 1.9.10
>Reporter: Axel Hanikel
>Assignee: Francesco Mari
>Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.10
>
> Attachments: 0001-OAK-7878-Add-LoggingHookTest.patch,
> 0001-OAK-7878-Add-LoggingHookTest.patch, OAK-7878-02.patch
>
>
> Add a unit test for LoggingHook.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7878) Add unit test for LoggingHook
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7878?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Francesco Mari updated OAK-7878: Fix Version/s: (was: 1.9.12) > Add unit test for LoggingHook > - > > Key: OAK-7878 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7878 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Test > Components: segment-tar >Affects Versions: 1.9.10 >Reporter: Axel Hanikel >Assignee: Francesco Mari >Priority: Minor > Fix For: 1.10 > > Attachments: 0001-OAK-7878-Add-LoggingHookTest.patch, > 0001-OAK-7878-Add-LoggingHookTest.patch, OAK-7878-02.patch > > > Add a unit test for LoggingHook. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7901) NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Julian Reschke updated OAK-7901: Description: See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7511. > NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull > -- > > Key: OAK-7901 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: core >Affects Versions: 1.9.11 >Reporter: Julian Reschke >Assignee: Julian Reschke >Priority: Minor > Labels: candidate_oak_1_8 > Fix For: 1.10 > > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7511. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (OAK-7901) NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Julian Reschke updated OAK-7901: Labels: candidate_oak_1_8 (was: ) > NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull > -- > > Key: OAK-7901 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: core >Affects Versions: 1.9.11 >Reporter: Julian Reschke >Assignee: Julian Reschke >Priority: Minor > Labels: candidate_oak_1_8 > Fix For: 1.10 > > -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-7901) NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull
Julian Reschke created OAK-7901: --- Summary: NodeTypeRegistryTest uses javax.annotation.Nonnull Key: OAK-7901 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7901 Project: Jackrabbit Oak Issue Type: Bug Components: core Affects Versions: 1.9.11 Reporter: Julian Reschke Assignee: Julian Reschke Fix For: 1.10 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-7889) Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686387#comment-16686387 ] Hudson commented on OAK-7889: - Build is still failing. Failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak #1788|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1788/] [console log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1788/console] > Build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 failed > - > > Key: OAK-7889 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7889 > Project: Jackrabbit Oak > Issue Type: Bug > Components: continuous integration >Reporter: Hudson >Priority: Major > > No description is provided > The build Jackrabbit Oak #1778 has failed. > First failed run: [Jackrabbit Oak > #1778|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/] [console > log|https://builds.apache.org/job/Jackrabbit%20Oak/1778/console] -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Resolved] (OAK-6957) Remove export for org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.security
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6957?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
angela resolved OAK-6957.
-
Resolution: Fixed
> Remove export for org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.security
>
>
> Key: OAK-6957
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6957
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Technical task
> Components: core, security
>Reporter: angela
>Assignee: angela
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.10, 1.9.12
>
> Attachments: OAK-6957.patch
>
>
> [~stillalex], with the fix you provided for the {{Jcr}} class we should be
> able drop the export for _org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.security_
> Looking for remaining usages I noticed OAK-6956, which I will link to this
> issue.
> Apart from that, what's your take on this?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Created] (OAK-7900) Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated UserAction
angela created OAK-7900:
---
Summary: Allow to spot User.disable with a new, dedicated
UserAction
Key: OAK-7900
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7900
Project: Jackrabbit Oak
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: security-spi
Reporter: angela
[~chaotic], as discussed off list we lack the ability to react to
{{User.disable(String)}} with the current {{AuthorizableAction}} interface,
while at the same time encouraging API consumers to disable users instead of
removing them.
One use case for such a method would be deleting additional information stored
with the user account such as e.g. profile data, preferences, as soon as the
user gets disabled.
Since extending {{AuthorizableAction}} would require a major bump of the
exported version, I would suggest to introduce a new {{UserAction}} interface,
providing that new method, in correspondance to {{GroupAction}}, which covers
group specific actions. And, in an ideal world
{{AuthorizableAction.onPasswordChange}} would also reside with {{UserAction}}.
[~stillalex], wdyt?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (OAK-6957) Remove export for org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.security
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6957?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16686208#comment-16686208
]
Alex Deparvu commented on OAK-6957:
---
+1
> Remove export for org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.security
>
>
> Key: OAK-6957
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6957
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Technical task
> Components: core, security
>Reporter: angela
>Assignee: angela
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.10, 1.9.12
>
> Attachments: OAK-6957.patch
>
>
> [~stillalex], with the fix you provided for the {{Jcr}} class we should be
> able drop the export for _org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.security_
> Looking for remaining usages I noticed OAK-6956, which I will link to this
> issue.
> Apart from that, what's your take on this?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
