Couchbase Java Client

Delete's get() doesnt return the right value

Details

  • Type: Bug Bug
  • Status: Resolved Resolved
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: 1.1.0, 1.1.1
  • Fix Version/s: 1.1.3
  • Component/s: library
  • Security Level: Public
  • Labels:
    None
  • Environment:
    Linux Mint Maya
    Couchbase Server 2.0, 1956, 1976
    Couchbase Client Java API 1.1.0, 1.1.1

Description

Deleting is faulty, I asked for get() which should wait for the result, but every 5th returns with false, however the deletion has performed.

I have attached a sample code and the output result.
  1. Java Source File
    CouchBaseTester.java
    30/Jan/13 11:20 AM
    3 kB
    Balint Ureczky
  2. Text File
    Output.txt
    30/Jan/13 11:20 AM
    5 kB
    Balint Ureczky

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Matt Ingenthron made changes -
Field Original Value New Value
Project Couchbase Server [ 10010 ] Couchbase Java Client [ 10080 ]
Key MB-7638 JCBC-226
Affects Version/s 1.1.1 [ 10430 ]
Affects Version/s 1.1.0 [ 10274 ]
Affects Version/s 2.0 [ 10114 ]
Sprint Status Current Sprint
Matt Ingenthron made changes -
Fix Version/s 1.1.2 [ 10480 ]
Hide
Permalink
Balint Ureczky added a comment -
I also tested on the 2.0.0 enterprise server (build-1976), which was the same.

The server returns with the error "Key was modified" as you can see in the attached output.txt
Show
Balint Ureczky added a comment - I also tested on the 2.0.0 enterprise server (build-1976), which was the same. The server returns with the error "Key was modified" as you can see in the attached output.txt
Michael Nitschinger made changes -
Assignee Michael Nitschinger [ daschl ]
Hide
Permalink
Michael Nitschinger added a comment -
To clarify, this error comes up when using the persistence constraints (persist, replicate) in combination. Just out of curiosity, can you try without them and see if it works as expected? Thanks
Show
Michael Nitschinger added a comment - To clarify, this error comes up when using the persistence constraints (persist, replicate) in combination. Just out of curiosity, can you try without them and see if it works as expected? Thanks
Michael Nitschinger made changes -
Component/s library [ 10140 ]
Hide
Permalink
Balint Ureczky added a comment -
Yes, with the default ReplicateTo.ZERO, PersistTo.ZERO settings, its 1000 times faster and there arent any failure in 100.000 tries.
With ReplicateTo.ZERO, PersistTo.ONE settings, i got ~20 failure in 100 tries.
Show
Balint Ureczky added a comment - Yes, with the default ReplicateTo.ZERO, PersistTo.ZERO settings, its 1000 times faster and there arent any failure in 100.000 tries. With ReplicateTo.ZERO, PersistTo.ONE settings, i got ~20 failure in 100 tries.
Michael Nitschinger made changes -
Fix Version/s 1.1.3 [ 10496 ]
Fix Version/s 1.1.2 [ 10480 ]
Hide
Permalink
Michael Nitschinger added a comment -
This will be fixed in 1.1.3, we just pushed some changes that fixes this.
Show
Michael Nitschinger added a comment - This will be fixed in 1.1.3, we just pushed some changes that fixes this.
Michael Nitschinger made changes -
Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]

People

  • Assignee:
    Michael Nitschinger
    Reporter:
    Balint Ureczky
Vote (0)
Watch (2)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: