-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bogus shared:: storage entry in oc_storages #24106
Comments
There are no |
No idea why this is happening... @schiesbn maybe? |
@icewind1991 can we prevent this somehow ? |
Hmmm, I can't reproduce this in 9.1.0RC2 with or without encryption. Maybe it's fixed. |
But still happens in 9.0.4RC1. |
TODO:
|
|
Increasing to high. After seeing that oc_mounts also point to the wrong storages I'm having a bad feeling about possible side effects. |
I suspect that it works properly on 9.1 because when using the Jail wrapper, asking for the shared storage id would pass the call to the wrapped storage while in 9.0 it would just call |
Idea for the repair step: check whether oc_mounts.rootId resolved in oc_filecache.storage. If the storage doesn't match, fix it.
|
Repair step for oc_mounts: #25804 Now I realize that we'd also better delete the bogus "shared::" entries which is easy as long as we're not dealing with md5 ids... |
I need to retry this. Some backports done to OC 9 related to shared storages might fix this. |
Just retried with 9.0.8 and the bogus storages cannot be recreated. I'm closing this ticket but let's keep the PR for cleaning up the old mess... |
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Steps
(from Folder size not propagated when uploading as share recipient with encryption enabled #24105 as that's where I observed this while looking at the DB)
Expected result
No bogus storage in
oc_storages
Actual result
Bogus "shared::" storage for the local share:
Versions
ownCloud 9.0.1
@icewind1991 @rullzer is this something new in 9.0.1 or is this a bug ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: