From f3076a0a7b60fa444dbaea5a69f40ab423562765 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Valery Kharseko <vharseko@3a-systems.ru>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 13:23:09 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] [#955] Answer a ModifyDN whose entry is gone before the new superior is looked up (#965)
---
opendj-server-legacy/src/test/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/NamingConflictTest.java | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++
opendj-server-legacy/src/main/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/LDAPReplicationDomain.java | 26 +++++++-----
2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/opendj-server-legacy/src/main/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/LDAPReplicationDomain.java b/opendj-server-legacy/src/main/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/LDAPReplicationDomain.java
index 4ad0c39..c736131 100644
--- a/opendj-server-legacy/src/main/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/LDAPReplicationDomain.java
+++ b/opendj-server-legacy/src/main/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/LDAPReplicationDomain.java
@@ -3629,6 +3629,21 @@
// get the current DN of this entry in the database.
DN currentDN = findEntryDN(entryUUID);
+ if (currentDN == null)
+ {
+ /*
+ * The entry targeted by the Modify DN is not in the database anymore.
+ * This is a conflict between a delete and this modify DN.
+ * The entry has been deleted, we can safely assume that the operation is completed.
+ *
+ * This is answered before the new superior is looked up, and before the branch which
+ * marks the entry as conflicting: an entry which is not in the database can not be
+ * marked, and the delete has already settled what this Modify DN was trying to do.
+ */
+ numResolvedNamingConflicts.incrementAndGet();
+ return ConflictResolution.NOTHING_TO_DO;
+ }
+
// Construct the new DN to use for the entry.
DN entryDN = op.getEntryDN();
DN newSuperior;
@@ -3657,17 +3672,6 @@
DN newDN = newSuperior.child(newRDN);
- if (currentDN == null)
- {
- // The entry targeted by the Modify DN is not in the database
- // anymore.
- // This is a conflict between a delete and this modify DN.
- // The entry has been deleted, we can safely assume
- // that the operation is completed.
- numResolvedNamingConflicts.incrementAndGet();
- return ConflictResolution.NOTHING_TO_DO;
- }
-
// if the newDN and the current DN match then the operation
// is a no-op (this was probably a second replay)
// don't do anything.
diff --git a/opendj-server-legacy/src/test/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/NamingConflictTest.java b/opendj-server-legacy/src/test/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/NamingConflictTest.java
index 65c4498..cb74306 100644
--- a/opendj-server-legacy/src/test/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/NamingConflictTest.java
+++ b/opendj-server-legacy/src/test/java/org/opends/server/replication/plugin/NamingConflictTest.java
@@ -205,6 +205,46 @@
}
/**
+ * Test case for [Issue 955]: a ModifyDN whose entry and whose new superior are both
+ * gone from this replica is a conflict between a delete and this ModifyDN, and it is
+ * solved as such rather than left to be delivered again until this replica gives up on
+ * it.
+ * <p>
+ * Neither entryUUID the message carries resolves to a DN here, so conflict resolution
+ * has no new superior to move the entry under - and no entry to move either. The entry
+ * having been deleted settles what the ModifyDN was trying to do, which is what makes
+ * the change resolved: an entry which is not in the database can not be marked as
+ * conflicting, and marking it is what used to be attempted first, on the DN of an entry
+ * which is not there.
+ */
+ @Test
+ public void modifyDnOnAnEntryAndANewSuperiorWhichAreBothGone() throws Exception
+ {
+ final Entry entry = createAndAddEntry("modDnOnEntryAndNewSuperiorBothGone");
+ final String entryUUID = getEntryUUID(entry.getName());
+
+ final Entry newSuperior = TestCaseUtils.addEntry(
+ "dn: ou=newSuperiorBothGone," + TEST_ROOT_DN_STRING,
+ "objectClass: top",
+ "objectClass: organizationalUnit",
+ "ou: newSuperiorBothGone");
+ final String newSuperiorUUID = getEntryUUID(newSuperior.getName());
+
+ // Both entries are deleted on this replica while the ModifyDN is on its way.
+ TestCaseUtils.deleteEntry(newSuperior.getName());
+ TestCaseUtils.deleteEntry(entry.getName());
+
+ final CSN csn = gen.newCSN();
+ replayMsg(new ModifyDNMsg(entry.getName(), csn, entryUUID, newSuperiorUUID, false,
+ newSuperior.getName().toString(), entry.getName().rdn().toString()));
+
+ assertFalse(entryExists(entry.getName()),
+ "the deleted entry was brought back by the replayed ModifyDN");
+ assertTrue(domain.getServerState().cover(csn),
+ "a ModifyDN which the delete of its entry has settled must be recorded as replayed");
+ }
+
+ /**
* Test that when a previous conflict is resolved because
* a delete operation has removed one of the conflicting entries
* the other conflicting entry is correctly renamed to its original name.
--
Gitblit v1.10.0