[COCOON-1864] RepeaterJXPathBinding - order of row is inverted

• Type: Bug
• Status: Closed
• Priority: Major
• Resolution: Fixed
• Affects Version/s: 2.1.8, 2.1.9
• Fix Version/s: 2.1.10, 2.2
• Component/s: Blocks: Forms
• Urgency: Urgent
• Assignee: Antonio Gallardo Rivera
• Reporter: Dennis Dam
• Created: 16/Jun/06 14:49
• Updated: 17/Jun/06 15:28
• Resolved: 17/Jun/06 15:28

Description

I found a bug in the forms block of Cocoon 2.1.8 / 2.1.9. I found that
putting a min-size / initial-size attribute on a repeater element in the
CForms model, inverts the order of rows upon binding the form. So for
example the input document looked like:

<document>
  <row>a</row>
  <row>b</row>
  <row>c</row>
  <row>d</row>
</document>

and my repeater model element's intial-size was set at 3. After
transforming the forms template with the forms transformer, I see the
following field instances (pseudocode):

<field>c</field>
<field>b</field>
<field>a</field>
<field>d</field>

So what happens? The JXPathbinding for the repeater inverts the order of
the elements with index < initial-size! I traced this bug back to the
org.apache.cocoon.forms.binding.RepeaterJXPathBinding class, where I
found the following code snippet in the doLoad() method:

            while (rowPointers.hasNext()) {
                // create a new row, take that as the frmModelSubContext
                Repeater.RepeaterRow thisRow;
                if (initialSize > 0) {
                    thisRow = repeater.getRow(--initialSize);
                } else {
                    thisRow = repeater.addRow();
                }


I changed this into:

        int currentRow = 0;
        while (rowPointers.hasNext()) {
            // create a new row, take that as the frmModelSubContext
            Repeater.RepeaterRow thisRow;
            if (currentRow < initialSize) {
                thisRow = repeater.getRow(currentRow++);
            } else {
                thisRow = repeater.addRow();
            }

and now the binding works correctly / like I want it to work :). I must
note that I do NOT use an identity in my repeater binding declaration.
But I think it would be logical that leaving out the identity element
should result in preservation of the order the elements occur in the
input document.

regards,
Dennis Dam