It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

CRJAZ0656I **ERROR** Migration completed with errors.


Cathy Pfeiler (5698) | asked Oct 14 '09, 2:43 p.m.
We are trying to migrate/move a Derby database to DB2 database located on another server. First we tried to export and import using the repotools. But we got the CRJAZ0656I error. We then applied the iFix to both the source and destinations RQMs and attempted to migrate the data over. Once again the same error.


################################################################################
##############
****** Migration Errors ******
CRJAZ0656I **ERROR** Migration completed with errors. The imported database is i
n an inconsistent state and should not be used without further analysis.
Check the migration log "C:\IBM\RQM20\server\repotools_copy.log" for details.
################################################################################
##############

The log file shows the same error:

CRJAZ1150I ** ERROR ** Duplicate permissions operation id specified: com.ibm.rqm.planning.objective.save
com.ibm.team.process.common.service.ProcessDataValidationException: Duplicate permissions operation id specified: com.ibm.rqm.planning.objective.save
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.common.util.ProcessValidationUtil.validatePermissions(ProcessValidationUtil.java:332)
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.common.util.ProcessValidationUtil.validateProjectConfiguration(ProcessValidationUtil.java:231)
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.common.util.ProcessValidationUtil.validateProcessSpecification(ProcessValidationUtil.java:99)
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.service.DefaultProcessDataValidator.validateProcessData(DefaultProcessDataValidator.java:101)
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.service.DelegatingProcessDataValidator.validateProcessData(DelegatingProcessDataValidator.java:74)
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.service.ProcessService.validateProjectAreaPostSave(ProcessService.java:2099)
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.service.ProcessService.validatePostSave(ProcessService.java:1781)
at com.ibm.team.process.internal.service.ProcessService.validateProcessItem(ProcessService.java:1758)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:79)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:618)

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

cathy pfeiler

7 answers



permanent link
Anders Malmberg (1121214) | answered Oct 16 '09, 3:21 a.m.
Cathy,

contact support, they have similar problems from others. They can help.

Best Regards

permanent link
Cathy Pfeiler (5698) | answered Oct 16 '09, 2:30 p.m.
Cathy,

contact support, they have similar problems from others. They can help.

Best Regards


We edited the XML file and manually removed the duplicate statements. And that worked

permanent link
Hap Peden (1122) | answered Oct 29 '09, 11:13 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Cathy,

contact support, they have similar problems from others. They can help.

Best Regards


We edited the XML file and manually removed the duplicate statements. And that worked

Just want to add to Cathy's comments for clarity. I ran into this problem as well. Most likely it occured during the upgrade to v2.0.

Simply open up your RQM project area's process configuration source xml using the RTC client and either:

1) Remove duplicate entries or ...
2) Create a new RQM project using the same process template and copy the entire contents of its rocess configuration source xml process, replacing the entire contents of the process configuration source xml that has duplicates. You can take this approach if you have NOT customized the project/process with issues.

Thanks for your help, Cathy!

permanent link
Michael Fiedler (9113) | answered Oct 29 '09, 12:41 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
In general, if you want to perform a 2.0 -> 2.0 migration, it is recommended to put 2.0 iFix001 on the destination RQM system first. This iFix contains fixes for issues migrating one RQM 2.0 repository to another RQM 2.0 system.

permanent link
Michael Brown (16) | answered Apr 19 '10, 8:47 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
In general, if you want to perform a 2.0 -> 2.0 migration, it is recommended to put 2.0 iFix001 on the destination RQM system first. This iFix contains fixes for issues migrating one RQM 2.0 repository to another RQM 2.0 system.


If re-migration is not a viable option for your system, you can also manually correct this problem by removing the duplicate permissions entries from the process specification. To fix it manually, you'll have to use the RTC rich client:

1. Connect the RTC rich client to your server (make sure RTC is the same version as RQM, in this case 2.0.0.1).
2. Connect to the affected project area.
3. Right click on the project area and select 'Open'.
4. In the project editor, select the 'Process Configuration Source' tab.
5. Find the following XML path indicated below, remove the <project> tags for the operations indicated as duplicates.
6. Save the project.

Make SURE you remove the entire XML element (from <project> through </project>)
If it fails to save again, it will likely be that there is another dupe. Repeat these steps until no dupes are found.
It is likely that ALL of the duplicate entries will be at the BOTTOM of the list of project operations for the default role.

<process-specification xmlns="http://com.ibm.team.process">
...
<project-configuration>
...
<permissions>
<role id="default">
...
<project-operation id="com.ibm.rqm.planning.objective.save">
<action id="any"/>
</project-operation>
...
</role>
</permissions>
...
</project>
...
</process>

permanent link
Manuel Luna (1) | answered Dec 16 '14, 4:01 p.m.
Cathy,

What XML file did you edit to remove the duplicate permissions?

Thanks

permanent link
Cathy Pfeiler (5698) | answered Dec 16 '14, 5:22 p.m.
 My problem was applicable to RQM 1.0 - and 5 yrs ago - sorry I do not remember

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.