topic Re: Possible bug in Integrity Checker in Alfresco Archive

Possible bug in Integrity Checker

jgreen — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:15:03 GMT

I'm seeing what I believe to be a bug in the node integrity checker.It appears that Alfresco is not constraining it's integrity checks to the appropriate node.Essentially, within a folder I have a content type that has 3 associations to other content types, with 0 to many associations.When I create

Re: Possible bug in Integrity Checker

derek — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:10:51 GMT

Hi,

You have an implied source multiplicity, which is what it is complaining about. When you omit the source multiplicity definition, it assumes a mandatory source on that association. This doesn't mean that an association needs to have a source node (that is implied), it means that the target node must be attached to a source node via the association in question.

So, I read the model as:
You can have a prcrocedure standalone.
A prc:deliverableDefinition must be the target of both a prc:Inputs and a prcutputs association.

Anyway, it doesn't mean there isn't a bug. But set the association source attributes explicitly and if you still have problems, post your code here and I'll put it into a test to validate.

Regards

Re: Possible bug in Integrity Checker

jgreen — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:43:59 GMT

Thanks, I was just opening this up to say I figured it out, once I opened it up with the debugger and realized it checked both endpoints it was pretty odvious what the problem was.

This is my first foray into Doc Management, most of my data modeling experience comes from the Relational world, and I was thinking in terms of foreign keys specifications.

What would happen in this case (or is this even possible)

An association could be multiply-defined between 2 content types in both the source and target specifications, in a way that would generate a conflict as in:


<type name="prc:deliverableDefinition">
   <associations>
      <association name="prc:Inputs">
         <source>
            <many>false</many>
         </source>
         <target>
            <class>prc:procedure</class>
            <mandatory>false</mandatory>
            <many>true</many>
         </target>
      </association>
   </associations>
</type>

<type name="prc:procedure">
   <associations>
      <association name="prc:Inputs">
         <source>
            <many>true</many>
         </source>
         <target>
            <class>prc:deliverableDefinition</class>
            <mandatory>false</mandatory>
            <many>true</many>
         </target>
      </association>
   </associations>
</type>
‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍

Re: Possible bug in Integrity Checker

derek — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:45:18 GMT

Hi,

I'm glad to hear that it's working for you. My initial thoughts on the model snippet are that it should be fine. If I recall correctly (I'm a bit lazy to look at the code right now), the dictionary stores associations within the context of their defining types. There shouldn't be a conflict between the two association names.

Regards