Bug 1088929 - Business-Central has not been initialized correctly after deployment on WebSphere AS.
Summary: Business-Central has not been initialized correctly after deployment on WebSp...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: JBoss BPMS Platform 6
Classification: Retired
Component: Business Central
Version: 6.0.2
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
urgent
urgent
Target Milestone: ER2
: 6.0.2
Assignee: Maciej Swiderski
QA Contact: Radovan Synek
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-04-17 12:54 UTC by Radovan Synek
Modified: 2014-08-06 19:50 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-08-06 19:50:46 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
screenshot logging in (65.25 KB, image/png)
2014-04-17 12:54 UTC, Radovan Synek
no flags Details
missing file explorer (38.64 KB, image/png)
2014-04-17 12:55 UTC, Radovan Synek
no flags Details
system properties (46.43 KB, image/png)
2014-04-17 12:57 UTC, Radovan Synek
no flags Details

Description Radovan Synek 2014-04-17 12:54:44 UTC
Created attachment 887170 [details]
screenshot logging in

(BPM) Business-Central deployed & started on WebSphere AS without any error in server log show error dialog right after logging in (see attached screenshots). When I navigate to Authoring -> Administration, File explorer is missing completely and any attempt to create a new organizational unit ends up with the same error dialog that welcomed me after logging in.

Although niogit location has been specified via system property "org.uberfire.nio.git.dir", there is no sign of niogit, neither anywhere in WAS home.
Another problem is the fact that no DB schema update happened (tested with DB2-97 datasource).

Please note that the original deployable binaries has been changed by removing jboss-jaxrs-api_1.1_spec-1.0.1.Final-redhat-2.jar as a workaround for bug 1088249

Comment 1 Radovan Synek 2014-04-17 12:55:16 UTC
Created attachment 887171 [details]
missing file explorer

Comment 2 Radovan Synek 2014-04-17 12:57:40 UTC
Created attachment 887172 [details]
system properties

Comment 9 Geoffrey De Smet 2014-04-23 12:39:45 UTC
The KIE dependency versions are (by default) defined by the integration platform bom (ip-bom):
  https://github.com/jboss-integration/jboss-integration-platform-bom/blob/master/pom.xml
So that bom, must be in sync with a certain EAP version. If one of our dependency versions needs to change, a Pull Request should be made verses the ip-bom, because we share our EAP target version with the other IP projects that use the ip-bom.

To figure out who's responsible for which dependency's, use
droolsjbpm-build-bootstrap/script/find-all.sh pom.xml $dependencyName


FWIW:

> Modified:
> Artifact Product_version Community_version

> common-fileupload 1.2.2 vs 1.3.1
I upgraded commons-fileupload due to a security related BZ blocker.

> camel-core 2.10.0-redhat  2.10.3
> camel-josql 2.10.0-redhat   2.12.1
I recall that camel got upgraded by someone on the ip-bom, but we haven't followed yet.
All camel deps should be 2.12.2, once we upgrade to ip-bom CR6 (unreleased atm):
 https://github.com/jboss-integration/jboss-integration-platform-bom/blob/master/pom.xml#L161 

> bsh 2.0b5    1.3.0
bsh is very old library (2005) that is risky to have in our dep tree. I recommend that dashbuilder stops using it so we can remove it from our dependency tree. Check with Pedro or DavidG.

> plexus-utils-3.0.9.jar vs 3.0.7
> wagon-provider-api-1.0-beta-7.jar 1.0
Check with mfusco, he uses plexus and wagon-provider for the kie maven plugin IIRC.

> objenesis-1.1-redhat-2 vs 1.0.jar
Doesn't seem to be used directly. Transitive maybe?

> abdera-i18n  1.1.3-redhat-1 VS 1.1.2
Used only by jbpm-designer, check with Tihomir.

> xmlschema-core-2.0.2-redhat-2.jar 2.0.3
Use by jbpm-workitems, check with Kris

> jsoup 1.6.1-redhat-1 1.7.1
> mina-core 2.0.0-redhat-3 vs 2.0.4
> scannotation-1.0.2-redhat-2 1.0.3
Not directly used.

Comment 14 Geoffrey De Smet 2014-04-24 14:31:54 UTC
Ryan,

> I am wondering that should we downgrade the mina-core from 2.0.4 to 2.0.0 and also make WAS8 works?

Not sure. Downgrading is always risky (unless the entire QA testing is redone).

The ip-bom declares mina at 2.0.4, since it was created (AUG-2013):
https://github.com/jboss-integration/jboss-integration-platform-bom/blob/master/pom.xml#L178

Here's where we use mina for compile time dependencies:

+- org.uberfire:uberfire-nio2-jgit:jar:...:compile
|  +- org.apache.sshd:sshd-core:jar:...:compile
|  |  \- org.apache.mina:mina-core:jar:2.0.4:compile

Note that a lot of wb stuff depends on uberfire-nio2-jgit.
Porcelli is on PTO, maybe manstis can advice on the potential impact of a mina downgrade.


>Another thing is common-fileupload since you mentioned that there is security BZ blocker.
>Could you inform me the security BZ since we still used 1.2.2 in product?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078507

Comment 15 Geoffrey De Smet 2014-04-24 14:33:08 UTC
I did not change the priority, but BZ says I did, so I am undoing that.

Comment 16 Geoffrey De Smet 2014-04-24 14:47:15 UTC
Could you confirm again that EAP 6.1.1 includes mina 2.0.0?

mbiarnes did not find mina in jboss-eap-6.1.1/modules/system/layers/base/org/apache. Therefore we didn't see any EAP limitation and we're using a version of our choosing (2.0.4 apparently).

Comment 17 Maciej Swiderski 2014-04-24 16:20:57 UTC
after some investigation I couldn't find anything that points to mina that might be causing any issues. I tried both ER1 and ER2 with following results:

ER1 - was deployed and working ok after removal of jboss-* libraries that were conflicting with same provided by websphere

ER2 - works properly out of the box

One thing I noticed that we do provide applications as exploded wars which is not best option for WebSphere as they need to be packaged anyway. Important to note is that there is crucial manifest entires that must be present in the deployed war to make the deployment successful. So maybe WebSphere assemblies should be delivered as war files directly instead of having them exploded.
If not then we should document that when packaging the war file business-central.war/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF must be used instead of generating new one.

I put up a blog post about installation notes for WebSphere that can be found here: http://mswiderski.blogspot.com/2014/04/jbpm-6-on-websphere-installation-notes.html
hopefully it will be of some help as I tried to add some screenshots to illustrate steps.

Comment 18 Kris Verlaenen 2014-04-24 21:46:36 UTC
Radovan, could you let us know if you have the same results for ER2?

Comment 19 Ryan Zhang 2014-04-25 02:32:47 UTC
(In reply to Geoffrey De Smet from comment #16)
> Could you confirm again that EAP 6.1.1 includes mina 2.0.0?
Yes, Geoffrey.
It is defined in EAP 6.1.1 bom ( https://repository.engineering.redhat.com/nexus/content/groups/hudson-jb-ip-6-build/org/jboss/component/management/jboss-component-version-master/6.1.1.Final-redhat-61/jboss-component-version-master-6.1.1.Final-redhat-61.pom )
It contains the following line.
<version.org.apache.mina>2.0.0-redhat-3</version.org.apache.mina>
I also confirmed that BPMS 6.0.1.GA has shipped mina-2.0.0-redhat-3.

> 
> mbiarnes did not find mina in
> jboss-eap-6.1.1/modules/system/layers/base/org/apache. Therefore we didn't
> see any EAP limitation and we're using a version of our choosing (2.0.4
> apparently).
In that case, EAP probably do not ship the mina-core, and it is a build time dependency.

Comment 20 Ryan Zhang 2014-04-25 02:38:30 UTC
(In reply to Maciej Swiderski from comment #17)
> after some investigation I couldn't find anything that points to mina that
> might be causing any issues. I tried both ER1 and ER2 with following results:
> 
> ER1 - was deployed and working ok after removal of jboss-* libraries that
> were conflicting with same provided by websphere
> 
> ER2 - works properly out of the box
> 
> One thing I noticed that we do provide applications as exploded wars which
> is not best option for WebSphere as they need to be packaged anyway.
> Important to note is that there is crucial manifest entires that must be
> present in the deployed war to make the deployment successful. So maybe
> WebSphere assemblies should be delivered as war files directly instead of
> having them exploded.
Thanks for pointing this out, Maciej. I have created a BZ to track this.(See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091141 )
I will package it as war file for next release.

> If not then we should document that when packaging the war file
> business-central.war/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF must be used instead of generating
> new one.
> 
> I put up a blog post about installation notes for WebSphere that can be
> found here:
> http://mswiderski.blogspot.com/2014/04/jbpm-6-on-websphere-installation-
> notes.html
> hopefully it will be of some help as I tried to add some screenshots to
> illustrate steps.

Comment 21 Ryan Zhang 2014-04-25 02:44:36 UTC
(In reply to Geoffrey De Smet from comment #14)
> Ryan,
> 
> > I am wondering that should we downgrade the mina-core from 2.0.4 to 2.0.0 and also make WAS8 works?
> 
> Not sure. Downgrading is always risky (unless the entire QA testing is
> redone).
> 
> The ip-bom declares mina at 2.0.4, since it was created (AUG-2013):
> https://github.com/jboss-integration/jboss-integration-platform-bom/blob/
> master/pom.xml#L178
> 
> Here's where we use mina for compile time dependencies:
> 
> +- org.uberfire:uberfire-nio2-jgit:jar:...:compile
> |  +- org.apache.sshd:sshd-core:jar:...:compile
> |  |  \- org.apache.mina:mina-core:jar:2.0.4:compile
> 
> Note that a lot of wb stuff depends on uberfire-nio2-jgit.
> Porcelli is on PTO, maybe manstis can advice on the potential impact of a
> mina downgrade.
And also as you pointed out that EAP 6.1.1 do not exactly ship the mina-core, I think we can force ignore the 2.0.0-redhat-3 defined in EAP 6.1.1 BOM.
I agree with not downgrading mina-core.
> 
> 
> >Another thing is common-fileupload since you mentioned that there is security BZ blocker.
> >Could you inform me the security BZ since we still used 1.2.2 in product?
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078507
Thanks, will update it in product for next release.

Comment 22 Radovan Synek 2014-04-25 13:04:27 UTC
(In reply to Kris Verlaenen from comment #18)
> Radovan, could you let us know if you have the same results for ER2?

Hi Kris, yes the build works with WAS - at least with the default H2 DB, I have some issues with DB2, but it can be some problem in test environment configuration.

Comment 23 Radovan Synek 2014-04-28 13:51:54 UTC
Confirmed that Business central (BPMS-6.0.2.ER2) works with production DB (postgresql92, DB2).


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.