Eclipse Community Forums: EMF » [CDO] Should Audit validate the timestamp on instantiation?

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » EMF » [CDO] Should Audit validate the timestamp on instantiation?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

[CDO] Should Audit validate the timestamp on instantiation? [message #423426]

Tue, 30 September 2008 13:13

Andre Dietisheim

Messages: 131
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

I noticed the following behaviour when playing around with audits
(denoted by pesudo-code):

createSomeRepo();
createSomeSession();
session.openAudit(1911-11-11);

-> accepted! An exception (ReadonlyException) gets triggered later on,
as soon as I try to get the corresponding resource.

createSomeRepo();
createSomeSession();
session.openAudit(timeStampAfterRepoCreation);
audit.setTimeStamp(1911-11-11)

-> IllegalArgumentException (timeStamp < repository creation time)

My guess is that the timestamp used when instantiating an Audit
(CDOSession#openAudit(long timestamp)) should be validated in the Audit
constructor. If I'm wrong here it's still confusing to me to allow
timestamps prior to repository creation when setting the timestamp when
creating the audit while disallowing it when setting it by setTimeStamp().
The ReadonlyException showed above occurs because a new resource gets
added to the resourceset, the CDOViewSet gets notified of it and tries
to attach it to the audit:

CDOViewSetImpl:

private void notifyAdd(CDOResourceImpl resourceImpl)
{
CDOViewImpl view = resolveUUID(resourceImpl.getURI().authority());
if (view != null && FSMUtil.isTransient(resourceImpl))
{
view.toTransaction().attach(resourceImpl);
}
}

Am I right? Shall I post a bugzilla? I have a supplementary test for
AuditTest and I could try tp patch CDOAuditImpl.

Cheers
André

Report message to a moderator

Re: [CDO] Should Audit validate the timestamp on instantiation? [message #423471 is a reply to message #423426]

Tue, 30 September 2008 16:14

Eike Stepper

Messages: 6682
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi André,

You're right, the behaviour should be the same for session.openAudit()
and audit.setTimeStamp(). Please file a Bugzilla for this one so that we
can track it. Btw. I think the timeStamp must be validated by the
repository (as is done in setTimeStamp) because all time stamps are
always repository-scoped.

The ReadOnlyException looks like a separate bug and I wonder hy we
haven't seen it in the tests. Can you file a separate Bugzilla and
attach your test case?

Thank you
/Eike

André Dietisheim schrieb:
> I noticed the following behaviour when playing around with audits
> (denoted by pesudo-code):
>
> createSomeRepo();
> createSomeSession();
> session.openAudit(1911-11-11);
>
> -> accepted! An exception (ReadonlyException) gets triggered later on,
> as soon as I try to get the corresponding resource.
>
> createSomeRepo();
> createSomeSession();
> session.openAudit(timeStampAfterRepoCreation);
> audit.setTimeStamp(1911-11-11)
>
> -> IllegalArgumentException (timeStamp < repository creation time)
>
> My guess is that the timestamp used when instantiating an Audit
> (CDOSession#openAudit(long timestamp)) should be validated in the
> Audit constructor. If I'm wrong here it's still confusing to me to
> allow timestamps prior to repository creation when setting the
> timestamp when creating the audit while disallowing it when setting it
> by setTimeStamp().
> The ReadonlyException showed above occurs because a new resource gets
> added to the resourceset, the CDOViewSet gets notified of it and tries
> to attach it to the audit:
>
> CDOViewSetImpl:
>
> private void notifyAdd(CDOResourceImpl resourceImpl)
> {
> CDOViewImpl view = resolveUUID(resourceImpl.getURI().authority());
> if (view != null && FSMUtil.isTransient(resourceImpl))
> {
> view.toTransaction().attach(resourceImpl);
> }
> }
>
>
> Am I right? Shall I post a bugzilla? I have a supplementary test for
> AuditTest and I could try tp patch CDOAuditImpl.
>
> Cheers
> André
>

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper

Report message to a moderator

Re: [CDO] Should Audit validate the timestamp on instantiation? [message #423486 is a reply to message #423471]

Wed, 01 October 2008 10:11

Andre Dietisheim

Messages: 131
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Howdie Eike!

> You're right, the behaviour should be the same for session.openAudit()
> and audit.setTimeStamp(). Please file a Bugzilla for this one so that we
> can track it.

done: bug 249282

I added a patch for AuditTest that brings 2 test-methods that check for
illegal timestamps when creating/dealing with audits

I further added a proposed patch for Audit that validates the timeStamp
in the constructor.

> Btw. I think the timeStamp must be validated by the
> repository (as is done in setTimeStamp) because all time stamps are
> always repository-scoped.

looking at the code to use:
I wonder if Repository#validateTimeStamp could be made static?

>
> The ReadOnlyException looks like a separate bug and I wonder hy we
> haven't seen it in the tests. Can you file a separate Bugzilla and
> attach your test case?

I'll check this one right afterwards ;-)

Cheers
André

>
> Thank you
> /Eike
>
>
> André Dietisheim schrieb:
>> I noticed the following behaviour when playing around with audits
>> (denoted by pesudo-code):
>>
>> createSomeRepo();
>> createSomeSession();
>> session.openAudit(1911-11-11);
>>
>> -> accepted! An exception (ReadonlyException) gets triggered later on,
>> as soon as I try to get the corresponding resource.
>>
>> createSomeRepo();
>> createSomeSession();
>> session.openAudit(timeStampAfterRepoCreation);
>> audit.setTimeStamp(1911-11-11)
>>
>> -> IllegalArgumentException (timeStamp < repository creation time)
>>
>> My guess is that the timestamp used when instantiating an Audit
>> (CDOSession#openAudit(long timestamp)) should be validated in the
>> Audit constructor. If I'm wrong here it's still confusing to me to
>> allow timestamps prior to repository creation when setting the
>> timestamp when creating the audit while disallowing it when setting it
>> by setTimeStamp().
>> The ReadonlyException showed above occurs because a new resource gets
>> added to the resourceset, the CDOViewSet gets notified of it and tries
>> to attach it to the audit:
>>
>> CDOViewSetImpl:
>>
>> private void notifyAdd(CDOResourceImpl resourceImpl)
>> {
>> CDOViewImpl view = resolveUUID(resourceImpl.getURI().authority());
>> if (view != null && FSMUtil.isTransient(resourceImpl))
>> {
>> view.toTransaction().attach(resourceImpl);
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> Am I right? Shall I post a bugzilla? I have a supplementary test for
>> AuditTest and I could try tp patch CDOAuditImpl.
>>
>> Cheers
>> André
>>

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	[CDO] server setup and using an internal API?
Next Topic:	EMF Transactions: Listen for rollbacks / clean up resources

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Fri Apr 19 04:46:55 GMT 2024

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter