Bug 798831

Summary:	Process inserts duplicate previous and next steps
Product:	[Community] PressGang CCMS	Reporter:	Joshua Wulf <jwulf>
Component:	CSProcessor	Assignee:	Lee Newson <lnewson>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	1.x	CC:	jwulf, lcarlon
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-06-07 01:31:25 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Joshua Wulf 2012-03-01 02:40:05 UTC

e.g: from the build of SPEC ID: 6192


4.3.3. Create your first Content Spec
Previous Steps in Basic Content Spec Tutorial
Section 4.3.2, “Configure csprocessor for the test server”
Section 4.3.2, “Configure csprocessor for the test server”




Result:

You now have a Content Spec for a test book with one chapter and one topic.
Next Steps in Basic Content Spec Tutorial
Section 4.3.4, “Push your first Content Spec to the server”
Section 4.3.4, “Push your first Content Spec to the server”

Comment 1 Joshua Wulf 2012-03-01 02:45:43 UTC

Spec revision: 42109

Web Service at http://csprocessor.cloud.lab.eng.bne.redhat.com:8080/ version: 0.21.4

Comment 2 Lee Newson 2012-03-05 06:37:40 UTC

Fixed in 0.22.0.

Cause:
The problem was due to a memory issue because Java stores references for Objects, I was trying to modify one object and it was modifying the same object. I was then adding the relationships twice without intentionally doing so.

Consequence:
Two relationships were being created.

Fix:
The relationships that are added are now done so that a new object that doesn't reference the old in created. This stops the duplicate relationship issue.

Comment 3 Lee Newson 2013-06-07 01:31:25 UTC

Closing and setting as current release as no QA was performed by the original reporter. If there is still an issue with this bug still than please re-open it.