[ome-devel] Issue after upgrading from 4.4.5 to 4.4.9

[Niko Ehrenfeuchter]

Hey Josh,

On 14.11.2013 17:26, Josh Moore wrote:
[...]
>
> After getting a sneak peak at your DB (thanks for that!), I think I have the answer:
>
>   $ bin/omero hql "select g.id from ExperimenterGroup g join g.groupExperimenterMap m join m.child as e where e.omeName = 'diogo'"
>   # | Col1
> ---+------
>   0 | 353
>   1 | 1
> (2 rows)
>
> In other words, user "diogo" is no longer a member of group 3. How that happened, of course, I don't know. (Likely detectable in the Blitz-0.logs if you'd like)

the one thing that puzzles me now is that group 3 is the "default" 
group. The images should rather have been assigned to group 353, am I 
wrong here?

Digging a bit around, I found some more users whose images were assigned 
to group 3 (whereas for most users their images are assigned to a group 
ID that makes sense in my feeling).

As it wasn't me setting up the group or user account in OMERO, I have no 
clue what was done there. However, this is the group membership of all 
the users that have images being assigned to group 3:

>> omero=> SELECT * FROM groupexperimentermap WHERE child IN (SELECT DISTINCT owner_id FROM image WHERE group_id = '3');
>>  id  | permissions | owner | version | child | external_id | parent | child_index
>> -----+-------------+-------+---------+-------+-------------+--------+-------------
>>  555 |        -120 | f     |       0 |   552 |             |    353 |           0
>>  554 |        -120 | f     |       0 |   552 |             |      1 |           1
>>   39 |         -40 | f     |       0 |    15 |             |      8 |           0
>>   38 |        -120 | f     |       0 |    15 |             |      1 |           1
>>   54 |        -120 | f     |       0 |    52 |             |      1 |           1
>>   57 |         -40 | f     |       0 |    52 |             |      6 |           0
>>    6 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     3 |             |      1 |           1
>>    8 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     3 |             |      4 |           0
>>    5 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     3 |             |      3 |           4
>>   44 |         -40 | t     |       0 |     3 |             |     10 |           5
>>  319 |        -120 | t     |       0 |     3 |             |    255 |           6
>>   19 |        -120 | t     |       0 |     3 |             |      5 |           3
>>   34 |        -120 | t     |       0 |     3 |             |      9 |           2
>>  353 |        -120 | t     |       0 |     3 |             |    303 |           7
>>   21 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     4 |             |      5 |           2
>>  260 |         -40 | t     |       0 |     4 |             |    203 |           3
>>   11 |         -40 | f     |       0 |     4 |             |      4 |           0
>>   10 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     4 |             |      1 |           1
>>  403 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     4 |             |    103 |           4
>>  510 |        -120 | t     |       0 |     4 |             |    354 |           5

-> as you can see, none of these users is member of group 3...?!

Currently I don't really think so, but might this be related to our old 
"default group" issue?

http://www.openmicroscopy.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1140

One more thing that confuses me even more: *my* user account is member 
of both relevant groups (353 and 3), yet I don't see the images either.

>> omero=> SELECT * FROM groupexperimentermap WHERE child IN (SELECT id FROM experimenter WHERE omename = 'ehrenfeu');
>>  id  | permissions | owner | version | child | external_id | parent | child_index
>> -----+-------------+-------+---------+-------+-------------+--------+-------------
>>   16 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     9 |             |      1 |           1
>>   18 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     9 |             |      3 |           2
>>   22 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     9 |             |      5 |           3
>>   17 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     9 |             |      4 |           4
>>  603 |        -120 | f     |       0 |     9 |             |    353 |           0
>> (5 rows)

So I'm tempted to believe this is more something related to the upgrade, 
no? Should I upload the Blitz-0.logs? I could also offer a dump of the 
DB as it as with 4.4.5, if that helps?

Cheers
~Niko