cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Read only

Remove impex for AttributeDescriptor fails "due to attribute descriptor is not removable"

rohan1607
Explorer
0 Kudos
1,435

We are cleaning up our database after an upgrade to get ready for cloud migration. This is to match the schema of our on premise database to the initialized database on cloud environment. Since the initialized database creates tables/columns based on items.xml, there are differences in on premise DB schema versus initialized DB schema. We are in the process of removing the unwanted columns and as part of that we are also removing the reference from AttributeDescriptor. While the removal works for other columns there are few OOTB columns for which the remove impex fails with the following error -

REMOVE AttributeDescriptor;qualifier[unique = true];enclosingType(code)[unique = true]
,,,,could not remove item 8796406644823 due to attribute descriptor CxCmsAction.segmentPOS:java.lang.Integer is not removable.;segmentPOS;CxCmsAction
,,,,could not remove item 8796303622231 due to attribute descriptor CatalogVersionSyncCronJobHistory.cronJobPOS:java.lang.Integer is not removable.;cronJobPOS;CatalogVersionSyncCronJobHistory
,,,,could not remove item 8796302671959 due to attribute descriptor CronJobHistory.cronJobPOS:java.lang.Integer is not removable.;cronJobPOS;CronJobHistory
,,,,could not remove item 8796404645975 due to attribute descriptor SimpleAction.segmentPOS:java.lang.Integer is not removable.;segmentPOS;SimpleAction

The impex that we are executing is as follows -
REMOVE AttributeDescriptor; qualifier[unique = true]; enclosingType(code)[unique = true]
; segmentPOS ; CxCmsAction
; segmentPOS ; SimpleAction
; cronJobPOS ; CatalogVersionSyncCronJobHistory
; cronJobPOS ; CronJobHistory

I have also tried executing one row at a time, since CatalogVersionSyncCronJobHistory extends CronJobHistory just ran the impex for CronJobHistory but still see the same error.

I have seen few other questions in this forum where other teams have faced similar issues but there is no resolution.

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (0)