Sync deleting users but not deleting users

[jriker1]

OK, so the subject is wierd but it denotes the problem.  Due to an accidental setting with my ldap settings, I sucked in my entire company off the AD into Alfresco.  I only wanted one group.  Now I have it set correctly and nightly it goes thru and shows in the tomcat logs that it deleted like 50 some thousand users from the system:

01:19:37,390  WARN  [security.sync.ChainingUserRegistrySynchronizer] Deleting user '<network_id_here>'

Problem is, said user still exists in the system and enabled.  It is not applying the additional attributes that the users in the group I want to keep get, but when it tries to delete it as I would expect it should since these users are not in my domain group I am pointing to, it tells me the above without an error and the user is still there.  Any ideas?

Thanks.

JR

[dward]

It's not on HEAD yet because there is a freeze on non-RM check ins at the moment. Will let you know when it is.

[jriker1]

It's not on HEAD yet because there is a freeze on non-RM check ins at the moment. Will let you know when it is.

Understood.  If you think it may be a while please feel free to post or msg me the changes or files that need to be updated.  Every night when the sync job runs it kills the prod box and Alfresco has to be restarted.

Thanks.

JR

[dward]

I've attached a diff to the JIRA issue.

[jriker1]

I've attached a diff to the JIRA issue.

Thanks you rock.  I incorporated your changes and it worked like a charm.  All 84k users are gone except the ones in my Alfresco group.  If you want me to test the latest build when this gets incorporated in officially to see if I still have the DB problems, you can still feel free to let me know if you remember.

Thanks.

JR

[jriker1]

Dave,

I am updating my code to the latest release and went to verify if these changes were in there.  Doesn't look so, however JIRA says the problem has been fixed and resolved.  Can you verify?  The ChainingUserRegistrySynchronizer.java looks like it may be different than the original one however does not match your code updates included in the ticket.

Thanks.

JR

[jriker1]

Curious if it's safe to assume the code is now in the current HEAD version or if I still have to keep updating based on provided change log.

Thanks.

JR

[dward]

Sorry I didn't update this. Yes the code in HEAD (and 3.2r2) now contains the fix. Since I made the original fix we tuned the synchronizer and schema to be even more fault tolerant and scalable to even larger user directories. I hope you like it.