From: Dmitriy S. <sha...@gm...> - 2010-03-20 11:33:51
|
Not this. Check TC, 11467 & 11468 commits On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 11:32 +0100, Dannes Wessels wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:24 AM, <sha...@us...> wrote: > > [ignore] use SecurityManager.GUEST instead of UserImpl.DEFAULT > > > trunk/eXist/test/src/org/exist/validation/DatabaseInsertResources_NoValidation_Test.java > > trunk/eXist/test/src/org/exist/validation/DatabaseInsertResources_WithValidation_Test.java > > - broker = pool.get(UserImpl.DEFAULT); > > + broker = pool.get(SecurityManager.GUEST); > > I was a bit surprised that this little change made the junit test > fail. Do we have any idea why we did not see this before? Did we run > the test suite locally? > > Anyway, what are the risks here? At this moment we found this issue in > the not related validation tests by accident... did we check whether > there are more locations where this can happen? > > Couldn't these UserImpl.DEFAULT and SecurityManager.GUEST be made > identical, making it a pure replacement, so there is no risk? > > regards > > Dannes > -- Cheers, Dmitriy Shabanov |