r17 - 2020-09-22 - 15:13:45 - PaulEllisYou are here: TWiki >  Deployment Web > DeploymentTroubleshooting > DeploymentTroubleshootingVerifyCommand

Repotools Verify command - additional guidance new.png

Authors: PaulEllis, ZeeshanChoudhry, GlennBardwell, PrabhatGupta,
Build basis: None.

This document expands upon repository tools command to verify the integrity of a database to provide common errors and their resolution, as well as further explanation of how and when to use the verify command.

The command "repotools -verify" can be used to verify your database as part of a weekly/monthly maintenance schedule, or prior to an upgrade or other major deployment activities. This command allows logical verification of objects, in addition to some mid-level concepts, such as context checking. We also recommend to include this as a post-upgrade task using level 4 (see below for more details on levels).

./repotools-rm.sh -verify level=4

Use the repotools verify command to verify the integrity of a database. There are different levels for use with this command, using what level; and document the error messages so you can contextualize the seriousness of the warning/errors.

Purpose
The verify command is used for contents verification in the database with verification levels set between number one and ten.

Online Verify

The repotools onlineverify command verifies the integrity of repository database tables. Specifically, it verifies that the ITEM_TYPES, ITEM_CURRENTS, CONTENT_STORAGE, and ITEM_STATES tables have consistent values. From a user perspective, these are the low-level tables that store much of the data in CLM. Some data is duplicated in these tables. This analysis looks for inconsistency in the duplicated elements.

You can use onlineverify directly from your browser via https://://onlineVerify (eg. https://mymachine:9443/ccm/onlineVerify. You need to enable repodebug in the the application Advanced Settings.

The repotools -verify command verifies the integrity of resources at the application level. This command analyzes the self-consistency of the tables that make each of the application components. Each component contributes its own verification.

The verify command looks for higher-level logical inconsistencies in the application data.

Some data is duplicated in these tables. This analysis looks for consistency in the duplicated elements.

The repotools -verify command verifies the integrity of resources at the application level. This command analyzes the self-consistency of the tables that make each of the application components. Each component contributes its own verification.

If you install onlineverify from https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Main/L3DevTool and run -verify, the -verify command will also run onlineverify.

What level should I use?


Each component uses these levels with different verbose checks so it is hard to be definitive which level would do what for Builds or SCM component for example. Level 5 should be the base to start with if verification is needed.

Level one is the minimum verification level. Level one for example, verifies if the item can be fetched by simple fetch call at a very top level. If some components show major problems, then you can start with a higher level to get more verbose output. This is the default and is good for your maintenance tasks (monthly check) or prior to upgrade to ensure there are no problems. If after the execution, the log reports any issues then you will need to increase verbosity to at least 5 to understand them.
Level ten is the maximum verification level. When the level is set to ten, it looks for the particular content of the component in all database tables and verifies their validity. Only run level 10, if instructed to do so by IBM Support. This level produces a large verbose output and takes some time to complete.

It is expected that you run this command as a scheduled task on at least a monthly basis. It is especially recommended that you run this command prior to an upgrade to ensure that any output is verified by IBM Support. Therefore, it is also recommended to perform the command with plenty of time to allow analysis and resolution of any more serious errors (so not 4 hours prior to upgrade!).

Types of errors

This page summarizes those errors that could be returned from the tool. Those errors that are non-serious and do not currently have a technote elsewhere are explicitly listed. There are some errors which were documented prior to this page, which will reference the published technote.

Note: In versions of Rational® Team Concert® earlier than 3.0.0, it was possible for a change set to be displayed multiple times in the history of a workspace or a stream. When you run the verify command on databases that contain data that was created with versions of Rational Team Concert earlier than 3.0.0, messages similar to this one might be displayed: History contains multiple references to change set _ifGCAfwOEdyMyflwGKMWgg. This error can be ignored.

If you are scripting these checks, then you can parse CRJAZ2222I Verification was successful to see if there is anything to investigate. If the verification is not successful then proceed to the errors below. If it is successful, then there is no more to do.

1) CRRTC3004E errors

Known examples of this error are:

  • CRRTC3004E: Build component item of type BuildResult with item ID .......
  • CRRTC3004E: Build component item of type BuildEngine with item ID .....
  • CRRTC3004E: Build component item of type BuildRequest with item ID....

Answer: These 3 errors are largely harmless and do not impact the upgrade. The missing BuildEngineActivity item should not cause any problems. When the last contact time for the engine is updated, this item will get recreated if needed. If, however, you do see related errors in the server log, the workaround would be to delete and recreate the build engine.

2) ...was found in the ITEM_CURRENTS table, but was not found in the Item query table

An example of this error would be:

The Item with ItemID "_abCDEfg7HijKlMnWto3lwg" and StateId "_xyz-E8j7EeaQuJlWto3lwg" was found in the ITEM_CURRENTS table, but was not found in the Item query table.

Answer: This error can be ignored. Having this in the Items Current and not in the Query table is not going to cause any issue.

3) The Item with item Id "UUID _abCdeFG_EeCCUKUG0TjNNg", state Id "UUID _abcde_bEeCCUKUG0TjNNg", and type "com.ibm.team.jfs.resource.Resource" references content "_d1gogR_bEeCCUKUG0TjNNg" but that content does not exist.

An example of this error would be:

The ITEM_STATE row with itemId = [UUID _abCdeFG_EeCCUKUG0TjNNg], keyId = [UUID _abcde_bEeCCUKUG0TjNNg], and itemType = com.ibm.team.repository#RepositoryRoot contained an item that references the predecessor state [UUID _d1gogR_bEeCCUKUG0TjNNg], but that state could not be found in the DB. There are no states older than this state, so the history seems to have been truncated.

Answer: This error can be ignored. They have no impact for an upgrade.

4) ...was found in the ITEM_CURRENTS table, but the same Item had a different StateId,...

An example of this error would be:

The Item with ItemID "_3Ac5BCdeFgHIjkLm7nO6pQ" and StateId "_-vUbAMclEdeQfJlWgh3ijk" was found in the ITEM_CURRENTS table, but the same Item had a different StateId, "_Y64-zMyxEwvQuJlWts3rqp", in the Item query table

Answer: These sort of errors would need Online Verify to check what ItemType this is. In the online verify those items are pointing to Build Results, Build Engines or Build requests. Build engine activity and are harmless for upgrade problems.
However, these can be cleaned up if needed. Send the output from repotools -verify; and Online -verify, to IBM Support via Service Request (SR) if you wish to proceed with removing the cause of these errors.

5) CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified errors

Known examples of this error are:

  • CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: Some problems were found while checking the consistency of the Item tables.
  • CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: Some problems were found in the tables related to the "com.ibm.team.enterprise.scd#ScanResult" Item type.
  • CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: There were some problems found in the Item query table for Item type "com.ibm.team.enterprise.scd#ScanResult".
  • CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: There were some problems found in the Item query table for Item type "com.ibm.team.enterprise.scd#ScanResult".
  • CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: Some problems were found in the tables related to the "com.ibm.team.enterprise.scd#ScanRequest" Item type.
  • CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: There were some problems found in the Item query table for Item type "com.ibm.team.enterprise.scd#ScanRequest".
  • CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: Some problems were found in the tables related to the "com.ibm.team.links#AuditableLink" Item type.

Answer: Online verify would problem better to check if its consistency problem or some thing structural is not good enough. We would need to bring in the Enterprise Extensions team to help resolve issues with these tables, so please create a Problem Maintenance Record (PMR) via Service Request (SR) if you encounter similar issues.

6) CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified...CRRTC5132E errors

Known examples of this error are:

Verifying items present in the "com.ibm.team.scm" component.
CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified:         SCM Verification failures
CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified:         CRRTC5132E The _ktNhguc_EeSUf5igoHwgaQ component entry has an invalid historic
 entry index.
CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified:         CRRTC5132E The _4HP4lMmtEeWqiLLRAUIq4g component entry has an invalid historic
 entry index.
Answer: The mentioned error indicating historical index missing for some SCM item can be safely ignored. We have encountered these after migrations, caused by history state references not handled in a clean way, but they tend not to cause any issues. Run Online verify to check for DB consistency issues.

7) CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified:...CRRTC5141E

A known example of this error are:

CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: CRRTC5141E The following item does not have a persisted query record: FileItem[_3zRTkKUuEd2m-sD01I2KJg]

Answer: The mentioned error can be safely ignored.

8) CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: CRRTC5113E

A known example of this error are: CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: CRRTC5113E There is a claim for the C4Ejryb1vBt7oAf6_vuwYS4pARgGikuIKn79RDVmyDY content hash, which does not exist in the repository.

Answer: The mentioned error can be safely ignored.

9) CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: CRJAZ0215E

CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: CRJAZ0215E The following record was not found in the database: com.ibm.team.apt.internal.common.nucleus.impl.IterationPlanRecordHandleImpl@32e06670 (stateId: [UUID _HaKTwckcEeaQuJlWto3lwg], itemId: [UUID _lzAVwPv_EeOPPKTEK6lM1Q], origin: , immutable: )

Answer: These sort of errors would need Online Verify to check what the underlying problem is. Send the output from repotools -verify; and Online -verify, to IBM Support via Service Request (SR) if you wish to proceed with removing the cause of these errors.

If you are seeing this error message in the Rational Team Concert web client, when viewing a work item's results, see: Displaying a work item results in "CRJAZ0215E the following record cannot be found" error in RTC Web client.

10)CRJAZ2221E The repotools command could not be verified or run

Answer: This comment can be found at the end of the verify log. It signifies that there were some errors during verification and at the end you get this error reported. If by any chance there is an exception to run the command , you would also see that error.

11) CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: CRJAZ6043E

CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: CRJAZ6043E The area cannot be created because its name includes one or more of these invalid characters: & < > " ' /

Answer: See technote, Attempts to upgrade the IBM Rational Team Concert (RTC) results in the error CRJAZ6043E., to resolve this problem prior to upgrading.

12) CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: duplicate permission operation id

Duplicate permission operation id specified: com.ibm.rrs.manageViewSchedule com.ibm.team.process.common.service.ProcessDataValidationException: Duplicate permissions operation id specified: com.ibm.rrs.manageViewSchedule

Note that the duplicate permission id may vary but same answer still applies.

Answer: This problem does not affect upgrade and can be ignored. The issue can be resolved using a diagnostic tool called NewProjectAreaValidator that can be requested from DNG support.The tool is configurable using DNG web UI admin page. No restart is required. The too can detect all DNG PA names which has "Duplicate permission operation id"

13) Data missing in Queryable join tables

2020-09-22 10:22:35,775 Data missing in Queryable join tables. Please run the -repairQueryableTables command using repotools.
2020-09-22 10:22:35,775 CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: Verification Failed. Please check logs for more information.
2020-09-22 10:22:35,790 CRJAZ1150E The repository was not verified: Data missing in Queryable join tables. Please run the -repairQueryableTables command using repotools.

This issue is new in DOORS Next 7.0.x. This issue occurs if the upgrade occurred prior to applying an ifix which resolved APAR PH28537: During DN 0.6 migration from 6.0.x to 7.0.x, a queryable helper.

To resolve this issue, get the latest 7.0.x ifix (minimum 7.0.1 ifix 6/7.0 ifix 6). Make a backup of the database on the server. Run this command ./repotools-rm.sh -repairQueryableTables analyzeOnly=true

This will report issues in the table. The report will look like below 2020-09-16 18:52:54,416 [main] Found issues with 11 item(s).

If this reports a problem run ./repotools-rm.sh -repairQueryableTables

Finally, post-upgrade we recommend that you run (regardless of whether you encountered the above error):

./repotools-rm.sh -verify level=4


Additional details on the types of problems repotools verify find versus the types of problems onlineverify

The repotools -verify command reports errors detected by the application. Each component can look at the artifacts that it understands. The verify command looks to see if the tables make sense in the context of the application.

Verify Examples

Every Contributor (user), must have a details record (User Name, photo...) associated with it.

Project areas names can't have special characters. See http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21993070

For each source project area that has a link to a target project area, the target project area must exist. The target project area must point back to the source project area.

Versions of records created in configuration aware project areas must have unique creation times.

In configuration aware project area, only one version in a given stream can be the current version.

A given project area's development line references must logically sound. The development line that is referenced must exist, and must be considered part of the project area.

In SCM, a changeSet is not allowed to appear more than once in a workspace's history.

Online Verify

In CLM several tables hold duplicated data. These can get out of sync. Here are the tables that are verified: ITEM_STATES, ITEM_TYPES, ITEM_CURRENTS, CONTENT_STORAGE, and query tables (e..g FRIENDS, DASHBOARD, MODEL - a workitem),

Background

Every time you save a workitem, project area, requirement, or other artifact on CLM, it's saved into the repository into the tables mentioned above.

Consider a workitem that is saved. All of the fields in the workitem are saved in the ITEM_STATES table. This includes both fields that you can query on and those that you can't.

Every time you save a workitem, a new entry is created in the ITEM_STATES table. CLM also keeps all the older versions – the history of the workitem - in the ITEM_STATES table. To keep this history as small as possible, CLM stores larger parts of the workitem (e.g. an attachment) in CONTENT_STORAGE. So, if you have a large attachment associated with a workitem. CLM doesn't resave the attachment each time you save the workitem.

The query table MODEL holds the latest entry of the workitem. The MODEL table is queried when you run queries to search for workitems. In general, queries only look at the most recently saved workitem. Examples

Most of the issues are related to data inconsistency. Think of onlineverify as a tool that finds data inconsistency in tables with duplicated data. The errors look like this. See also https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Deployment/DeploymentTroubleshootingVerifyCommand

The error below indicates that the query table (e.g. MODEL in the previous example) doesn’t have the same workitem as the ITEM_STATES table. The Item with ItemID "_3Ac5BCdeFgHIjkLm7nO6pQ" and StateId "_-vUbAMclEdeQfJlWgh3ijk" was found in the ITEM_STATES table, but the same Item had a different StateId, "_Y64-zMyxEwvQuJlWts3rqp", in the Item query table.

Here’s another type of inconsistency. The XML for an ITEM is corrupt, or it’s not the expected type

2017-04-08 23:49:32,344 The ITEM_STATE row with itemId = _xCDJABn-EeemLZ7uEhrfcA, keyId = _F_sAuxn_EeemLZ7uEhrfcA and itemType = com.ibm.team.workitem#WorkItem failed to be demarshalled.

Database transactions generally prevent these sort of errors. These problems are more likely to be a result of database recovery done incorrectly, or some sort of database administration error. That is, one table was recovered from a backup but another wasn't.

Not all errors that are reported by online verify indicate that the product won't work correctly. The errors have to be looked at one by one.

Related topics: Online Verify Tool, Repository tools command to verify the integrity of a database

External links:

Additional contributors: ElisabethCarboneHodel, SusanWu, MichaelAfshar, RosaNaranjo, IanBarnard

Edit | Attach | Printable | Raw View | Backlinks: Web, All Webs | History: r17 < r16 < r15 < r14 < r13 | More topic actions
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use. Please read the following disclaimer.